Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ayr Burgh (Electricity) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.

Copy ordered, "of Statement or particulars of Loans of which the balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off, in whole or in part, from the assets of the Local Loans Fund."—[Sir John Baird.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in calling a conference of Spanish and French representatives to discuss the question of Tangier?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): It is hoped that this conference will take place in England in the latter part of July.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been agreed that the future position of this country in the Sudan is a point reserved for future discussion between the British and Egyptian Governments; and, if so, whether the question of surrendering any existing British rights or authority in the Sudan will be a subject reserved for discussion?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to pages 29–30 of Command Paper 1592, and; in regard to the second part, I can only repeat the categorical statement made by the Prime Minister on the 28th February last to the effect that His Majesty's Government cannot agree to any change in the status of the Sudan that would in the slightest degree diminish the security for the many millions of British capital which are already invested in its development—to the great advantage of the Sudan.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the hon. Gentleman say definitely what are the subjects reserved for discussion?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the Command Paper of which I have given him the number in my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that Belgians can enter France and Algiers on the simple production of a card of identity, without a passport, and that while the French visa has been dispensed with in the case of Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Paraguay, Switzerland, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador and Siam, it is still in force against Canada and other British Dominions and Colonies; and whether, in view of these facts, the Foreign Office will make representations to the French Government to secure equal privileges for British subjects to those enjoyed by other nations, and will specially ask that any disability now distinguishing the treatment which our Colonies of South Africa receive as compared with the treatment accorded to other Colonies may be abolished?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As the reply is a little long, and very dull, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Belgian subjects are enabled to enter France and Algeria on production of a card of identity in place of a passport, in virtue of a special agreement between the French and Belgian Govern-
ments to which His Majesty's Government are not a party, owing to the impracticability of introducing the system of cards of identity in this country. An arrangement was concluded between His Majesty's Government and the French Government in July, 1921, whereby all British subjects could enter France and all French citizens could enter the United Kingdom without having French and British visas respectively affixed to their passports. This arrangement did not enable British subjects to visit French colonies and Protectorates or French citizens to visit His Majesty's Overseas Dominions without visas. Negotiations are, however, in progress with the French Government for the extension of the existing arangement to British subjects travelling to the French colonies and Protectorate and French citizens travelling to British colonies and Protectorates. The Governments of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Newfoundland have agreed generally to admit French citizens without British visas on their passports.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR EAST.

BOSPHORUS (NAVAL CONTROL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any British naval control of the Bosphorus; whether the warships of all nations are now allowed to pass through the straits; and whether His Majesty's Government were aware that the Greek warships which have recently been passing the Bosphorus were intended to be used for the purpose of bombarding the Turkish coast towns on the Black Sea?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The naval control of the Bosphorus is inter-Allied, not British. The Straits are open to the warships of all nations, except in so far as this may be incompatible with the Turkish armistice. In reply to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave last Wednesday to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. A. Herbert).

SAMSUN (BOMBARDMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Under Secretary of State for
Forign Affairs whether he now has any information regarding the bombarding of Samsun and other towns on the Pontine coast by Greek warships; whether any casualties were caused among non-combatants; and whether any American property was damaged by the bombardment and American or other European citizens killed and wounded?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no official information of any bombardment other than that of Samsun. The protests from the Grand National Assembly at Angora and from the Turkish Government at Constantinople state that there was loss of life and damage to civilian property at Samsun, but give no details, and His Majesty's Government have no other information.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.

Major GLYN: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement in regard to the Near Eastern settlement; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government in representing to the Turkish Government the necessity of conforming to the representations of the Allied Powers for the immediate establishment of peace in Asia Minor?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government are still considering, with their Allies, what step should next be taken to further a settlement in the Near East on the basis of the Paris Conference proposals. In these circumstances, no statement could usefully be made at this stage.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do we understand that the matter was discussed, as stated in the Press, and particularly in the French Press, with the French Prime Minister?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (NORTH AND SOUTH).

Mr. STEWART: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to affairs in China at the present time;
and whether peace has been arranged between the various contending parties?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: President Hsu Shih-chang having resigned his office on 2nd June, General Li Yuan-Hung on 11th June took up the duties of President of the Republic. The new President has appointed a Cabinet of Acting Ministers, with Dr. Yen as Acting Premier and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The latest report received is to the effect that fighting in North China has temporarily ceased, and that an armistice was arranged on the 16th instant between delegates from Generals Wu Pei fu and Chang Tso-lin, who met on board H.M.S. "Curlew" at Chinwangtao. It is hoped that further discussion between the delegates will result in definite peace between the belligerents.
In South China Press reports indicate that fighting between Chen Chiung-ming and Sun Yat-sen has resulted in the defeat of the latter, who is said to have taken refuge on a Chinese man-of-war. A later report states that a truce has been arranged between the contending parties.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge of any post in the Government being taken by Mr. Wellington Koo?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I have no information to that effect, but I will inquire, if the hon. and gallant Member desires me to do so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Member aware that many congratulations are due to His Majesty's Government for bringing about peace, or the beginnings of peace, in at any rate one country?

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what date is fixed for the withdrawal of British post offices from China as agreed on at Washington; whether Japan has already withdrawn most of hers; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to imitate this example?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Washington Resolution provides for the abolition of the post offices at latest by 1st January, 1923. The necessary arrangements are
accordingly being made for the withdrawal of the British post offices by that date. His Majesty's Government have no information as to the present position in regard to the withdrawal of Japanese past offices.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CLASPS (ISSUE)

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the cause of the delay in issuing the clasps which are due to be awarded in accordance with Fleet Order No. 2,051?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Owing to the urgent need for economy which has arisen since the announcement referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, it has been found necessary to suspend action in this matter.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that from motives of economy, these officers are to be deprived of the bars of their medals?

Mr. AMERY: It is not a question of depriving, but the work of settling all the clasps takes a great deal of time, and involves the employment of a very considerable staff.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Are they justified in wearing bars on the miniatures, which they purchase at their own cost?

Mr. AMERY: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

Colonel ASHLEY: When will the clasps be issued—in six months, a year, or five years, or when?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot suggest a date.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that the issue is merely postponed, or postponed sine die?

Mr. AMERY: I do not say sine die, but it is certainly postponed.

BRAZILIAN CENTENARY OF INDEPENDENCE.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what Powers have so far decided to send ships or squadrons to represent them at Rio de Janeiro; and if he can give the names of the ships which will be present?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what British vessels of war are stationed on the East coast of South America; and what will be the nearest British warships to Rio de Janeiro when the exhibition is being held?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the first question, I understand that it is the intention for the following men-of-war to be present at the Brazilian Centenary of Independence at Rio de Janeiro:

United States of America—3 dreadnought battleships.
Japan—3 old armoured cruisers.
Argentina—1 dreadnought battleship.
Chile—1 dreadnought battleship.
 Portugal—1 sloop.

With my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate the names of the ships in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is also probable that France and Italy will send ships, but nothing is yet definitely decided. As regards the second question, none of His Majesty's ships are stationed on the East coast of South America. The nearest British men-of-war to Rio de Janeiro will be those attached to the North America and West Indies station.

Viscount CURZON: Does the effect of that answer amount to this, that the only great maritime Power unrepresented at Rio will be this country, as at present arranged?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why it is that the British Navy, which had so much to do with the freeing of the South American Republics, is going to be the only big Navy unrepresented at this great national festival?

Lieut.-Col. Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman most seriously consider this question, as it is a matter of great importance to this country that it should be represented at the Rio de Janeiro Centenary Exhibition?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire what it would cost to send out battleships?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why is it that our Navy is not to be represented at the centenary of the birth of Republics, but is only engaged in trying to suppress them?

The names of the ships detailed to be present at the Centenary are as follow:

LIEUTENANT-COMMANDERS (PAY).

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what grounds the payment of their rank was withheld from the officers of the rank of lieutenant-commander who were promoted to the rank of commander on the 31st March, 1922, and ante-dated to the 1st January, 1922 and whether it is intended to allow such an unsatisfactory state of affairs to continue?

Mr. AMERY: A Lieutenant-Commander who is promoted to the rank of Commander while holding an appointment must, under the Regulations, be reappointed in the higher rank before he can receive the pay of that rank. In general, this Regulation, which is of long standing, gives rise to no difficulty, since a promoted officer is either re-appointed in the higher rank from the date of promotion, if the post is one authorised for an officer of either rank, or else immediately relieved, if the post is authorised only for an officer of the lower rank. The announcement of the promotions due on the 31st December last was, however, delayed until the end of March, and consequently those officers who held posts authorised only for Lieutenant-Commanders could receive only the pay of that rank for an exceptionally long period extending over three months. As I stated in my reply of the 14th June, the case of these particular officers is now under consideration; but apart from specially considering the case of these particular officers, which is admittedly exceptional, the Admiralty see no reason for interfering with the present Regulation, which has worked satisfactorily for many years.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in no fewer than five cases the officers were re-appointed, that in the remainder of the cases they were not re-appointed, and that therefore a difference was made as between some
of these officers, and does he realise that there is very great feeling and that these officers' promotion was delayed through no fault of their own, because the Government had further to consider them?

Mr. AMERY: Of course, the officers were only re-appointed in those posts which could be held by either Commanders or Lieut.-Commanders. They could not have been re-appointed Commanders in posts which are only held by Lieutenants.

Viscount CURZON: As these are very exceptional cases, cannot the Admiralty give serious consideration to making an exception in the cases of these five officers?

Mr. AMERY: I have already stated on two occasions that that is what we were doing.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is still willing to accept, or in any way assist, a contributory scheme of pensions for the widows of the officers and men of the Royal Navy; and if such a scheme can be considered and put in hand forthwith?

Mr. AMERY: It is understood that this subject was considered by the representatives at the recent inter-port meeting held under the Welfare Machinery, and is dealt with in one of their requests. It will be considered by the Admiralty in conjunction with the rest of the requests, when these have been forwarded through the Commanders-in-Chief, but I am afraid that I cannot in the meantime give any indication of what the decision will be on such a large and difficult question.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter was considered by one of his predecessors, who favourably entertained the proposal, and will he look at it from the national point of view?

Mr. AMERY: I think the conditions of service have improved very materially in other respects.

ENGINEER OFFICERS.

Sir B. FALLE: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can explain why engineer officers, Royal Navy, entered prior to 1903, are the only officers or men who are not allowed to
count their acting or probationary time; and if he is aware that in every other branch, as well as the engineering branch itself after 1903, acting or probationary time does count?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of the 31st May to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALITY LAW.

Mr. STEWART: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in regard to the granting of British nationality to descendants of British citizens born in Japan; whether, seeing that such people, being of purely British descent, are entitled to look solely to the British Government for a settlement of this matter, and as their interests are confined to a definition of their position as regards their mother country, further delay will be avoided with regard to this practically agreed subject; and can he say when the necessary adjustment of the law may be looked for?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I have been asked to reply. The hon. Member's point is met by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill, which my right hon. Friend introduced yesterday.

Mr. STEWART: May we look for that Bill being passed this Session?

Sir J. BAIRD: We hope so. We introduced it with that intention.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when it will be put forward for Second Reading, as it is of a non-contentious nature?

Sir J. BAIRD: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY (LITTLETON RESERVOIR).

Mr. GILBERT: 24.
asked the Minister of Health, in view of the shortage of water in the London area owing to the drought, what steps have been taken by the Metropolitan Water Board to complete forthwith their new storage reservoir at Littleton; if any special steps
have been taken since the War to complete the work; and whether, as it is necessary to complete more water storage for London consumers, his Department can take any steps in order to urge completion of this necessary reservoir?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The construction of the Littleton reservoir was interrupted by the War, and a fresh contract became necessary. Considerable progress has been made, and I am assured by the Metropolitan Water Board that the work is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — LUNACY ACTS.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has had any communication from the Merthyr Tydvil Board of Guardians urging the amendment of the Lunacy Acts of 1890 and 1891 so as to enable the statutory forms to be altered by substituting the words "mental patient" for "pauper lunatic," "mental hospital" for "lunatic asylum," and "institution" for "workhouse"; and whether he can give an assurance that such legislation will be promoted?

Sir A. MOND: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to my reply given on the 14th instant to a similar question by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir T. Bennett).

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF LOANS (POOR LAW GUARDIANS).

Mr. NEWBOULD: 27.
asked the Minister of Health the amount of the loans which have been made available to Poor Law guardians for purposes of relief; what are the terms as to interest and repayment upon which they have been made; at what date the money already so granted to those authorities will be exhausted; and whether, on the exhaustion of these funds, he intends to grant further loans?

Sir A. MOND: The total amount of loans sanctioned for the current expenditure of Poor Law authorities (including expenditure on relief) is £5,524,276. I will
send the hon. Member a statement as to the terms and periods of these loans. If further loans are necessary, they will be sanctioned.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. HURD: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the suggestion made at the Poor Law conference last week that, in the interests of the unemployed adult who desired to migrate to another part of the Empire, authority should be given to commute the guardians' relief and the unemployment benefit into short-period maintenance training grants for suitable persons of both sexes desirous of qualifying for overseas settlement and employment; and whether he will confer on this subject with the Overseas Settlement Board?

Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the suggestion referred to, and I will obtain the views of the Overseas Settlement Committee in regard to it.

BENEFIT PAYMENT (MISSING PAPERS).

Mr. BRIANT: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the hardship inflicted on men and women who are refused the unemployment grant for which they are eligible owing to their papers having been lost or mislaid by officers of his Department; if he will see that the proper recipients are not penalised by the mistakes of officers; and if he is also aware that applications have to be made for Poor Law relief owing to this delay in payment of amount due?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have no reason to believe that cases of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend are other than exceptional, and I will have immediate inquiries made in any such case brought to my notice.

DOCK LABOURERS, NEWRY.

Mr. SEXTON: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the case of the Newry casual dock and wharf labourers, whom it is alleged have been refused unemployment benefit, though idle for the full qualifying period, on the grounds that they could earn 30s. per week under normal circumstances and if he will make inquiries into the case?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend's question relates to the administration of
unemployment insurance in Northern Ireland, for which the Government of Northern Ireland is responsible.

Mr. SEXTON: Are we to understand that we have no jurisdiction over our own Act of Parliament?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Northern Government of Ireland is administering it.

Mr. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to Northern Ireland to see that this is put right?

STATISTICS.

Mr. HANNON: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can explain the difference between the statistics of unemployment published every Wednesday in the newspapers and those published in the "Labour Gazette" seeing that, according to the figures published in the Press, the numbers unemployed on 1st May and 29th May, respectively, were 1,617,082 and 1,471,600, while in the "Labour Gazette" the figures given were 1,675,456 and 1,521,887, respectively?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The statistics of unemployment published monthly in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," as stated in a footnote, relate to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those forwarded weekly to the Press relate to Great Britain only, and are so described. In order that the record may be complete, I am continuing to include the figures relating to Northern Ireland in the tables given in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" until such time as the Northern Ireland Government is in a position to issue information on its own account, which, I understand, will be shortly.

DESTITUTE FAMILIES (RELIEF).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 55.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the procedure whereby destitute families receive relief in money and in kind from three separate authorities, namely, boards of guardians, education authorities, and borough or urban and rural district councils, commonly results in an uneconomic and defective dietary; and whether he proposes to take any steps to centralise the organisations concerned, with a view to a better physiological use of the resources available?

Sir A. MOND: I am aware that in certain circumstances assistance may be given to destitute families from the three sources mentioned, but the particular result suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend has not been brought to my notice, and steps are being taken so far as practicable to prevent overlapping.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: In the steps taken to prevent overlapping is any definite basis laid down as to the physiological requirements for men in active work as described by the Committee of the Royal Society?

Sir A. MOND: We are trying to avoid overlapping in the giving of relief, but I do not quite connect the latter part of the question of the hon. and gallant Member with that policy.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I send a copy of the results of the investigations to which I refer to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration?

Sir A. MOND: I shall be delighted.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANCER (STATISTICS).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recent correspondence in the "Times" on the subject of the probable causes of cancer; and whether, in view of the need which exists for more precise information as to the extent of the increase in the death rate from that disease in the various countries of the world, he will obtain and publish the fullest possible statistics as to the death rates from year to year in every country where such records are available?

Sir A. MOND: My attention has been called to this correspondence. While fully aware of the importance of investigating the causes of cancer by all possible means, I am unable to undertake that the subject should be pursued in the manner proposed in the question, as there are insuperable difficulties in drawing accurate inferences from comparison of recorded cancer deaths rates in the different countries of the world. The question of international study of cancer prevalence is, however, receiving attention in my Department, and is being brought before the international bodies concerned with public health questions.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware-that on certain instruments, which are used in the cure of cancer, there is a duty of 333 per cent., and, therefore, is interfering with the progress of science?

Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of that. I shall want notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOROUGH EXTENSION.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in appointing his promised Royal Commission to consider the whole question of borough extension, he will also consider, either through the mediation of this body or otherwise, the possibilities of greatly cheapening and simplifying the present authorised procedure of attaining this end?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, Sir; I should certainly propose that this should be considered as part of the general question.

Mr. M. JONES: Will local authorities have representation upon that Royal Commission?

Sir A. MOND: I will certainly consider that.

Sir W. de FRECE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to await the findings of the Greater London Royal Commission before setting up another Royal Commission to consider the whole question of borough extension; when he anticipates these findings will be ready; whether he is aware that various towns have all prepared cases for the creation of county boroughs; and whether he can arrange for the appointment of the second Royal Commission without the delay which would otherwise appear inevitable?

Sir A. MOND: I understand that it is possible that the Report of the Royal Commission on Greater London may be made by, or not long after, the close of the year, and I think that there will be advantage in not appointing the new Royal Commission until that now sitting has reported. I sympathise with the councils whose cases are delayed, but, having regard to the need for the strictest economy at the present time, the delay may not be altogether an evil.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION.

Dr. McDONALD: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the increasing practice of many medical men to certify successful vaccination on the production of one vesicle with commercial lymph, he will authorise public vaccinators to use their discretion, in cases of objection to four marks, to insert a smaller number, but not fewer than two, in order that a larger number of children may become protected by the more effective and purer lymph supplied by the National Vaccine Establishment?

Sir A. MOND: I regret I cannot do as my hon. Friend suggests. It is essential that vaccination performed at the public expense should be maintained at a high level of efficiency. I am advised that the number, area, and character of the vaccination marks have an important bearing upon the degree and permanence of the protection afforded by vaccination against smallpox.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

MUNICIPAL SCHEMES.

Mr. GILBERT: 42.
asked the Minister of Health what is the present position of municipal authorities as regards the building of houses; and can any authority now undertake housing schemes entirely on their own responsibility and on the security of the local rates, or must they still submit all such schemes to his Department for approval before any local authority can undertake or commence building?

Sir A. MOND: There is nothing in the Housing Acts to prevent a local authority at the present time from building houses on its own responsibility, and without any approval from my Department, except in the case of schemes intended to rank for assistance from the Exchequer. Where, however, a local authority desires to raise a loan for the purpose of a housing scheme, my sanction is required, and I shall be glad to give the most favourable consideration to all applications of this kind. In the case of Metropolitan borough councils, the sanctioning authority for loans is the London County Council. I have no doubt that their policy in the matter would be the same.

SLUM AREAS.

Mr. GILBERT: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether any circular has ever been issued by his Department to local authorities asking them to make a return of all slum areas in their districts; and, if not, whether, in view of the reduced cost of building, it is proposed to urge all local authorities to consider the rebuilding of all slum areas possible in order to provide better housing accommodation and also building work for the unemployed at the present time?

Sir A. MOND: A return was obtained in 1919 showing the areas which, in the opinion of the local authorities, might have to be dealt with as unhealthy areas under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. Progress is being made with a number of schemes in various parts of the country already operative, or in preparation, and negotiations are proceeding with other local authorities for the adoption of further schemes.

Mr. KILEY: Could not the right hon. Gentleman bring some pressure on bodies like the London County Council, where a good many schemes are not making headway?

Sir A. MOND: I am in continual touch with the London County Council, and two or three schemes are on the point of being started now, and more are being considered.

Mr. MILLS: When an order for demolition is made, is alternative accommodation provided, in view of the fact that I have just come from the eviction of an ex-service man in Dartford who has to go into the workhouse with a family of five?

Sir A. MOND: Of course, these schemes of rehousing form part of the scheme for the provision of houses.

Mr. MILLS: I mean is it not under the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, a condition of the demolition order that the tenant must be provided with alternative accommodation?

Sir A. MOND: I must ask for notice of that question.

QUARRY BANK (MINING OPERATIONS).

Mr. SITCH: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the occupiers of five houses at Dunn's Bank, in the urban district of Quarry Bank, have been warned by Messrs. King Brothers, Limited, of Stourbridge, who are the lessees of the fireclay mines in the area, that mining operations are approaching the houses, with consequent risk of subsidence, involving the probable destruction of the houses; that it is impossible to obtain alternative accommodation in the neighbourhood at the present time; and whether he will take such steps as will prevent these families being rendered homeless by the action of the mining company?

Sir A. MOND: The facts stated have been brought to my notice. I strongly deprecate any action which would tend to reduce the existing housing accommodation during the present period of shortage. I should hope that it would be possible to arrange with the firm in question that the operations should for the time being be directed to some other part of the workings which would avoid this difficulty.

ENFIELD.

Mr. MILLS: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in connection with the Enfield housing scheme, a public inquiry was held by one of the Department's inspectors respecting the purchase of a site situate at the corner of Hadley Road and the Ridgeway, Enfield, Middlesex; and that, as a result of this inquiry, sanction was given for the purchase of this site as being eminently suitable for the erection of working-class houses; whether he has now sanctioned the sale of this site and approved, as one of the conditions of sale, that houses of a less rateable value than £50 shall not be erected thereon; and, if so, will he state the reason for this complete change of policy?

Sir A. MOND: The site in question is surplus to the scheme being carried out by the district council, and the council are quite properly taking steps to dispose of it and so to discharge the loan raised in connection with it. I am advised that the conditions of sale proposed by the council are such as to secure the best use of the land and the best price for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

MEDICINES AND APPLIANCES.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the distinction made as regards the prescription of necessary medicines and appliances between insurance practitioners in country and metropolitan areas; whether he is aware that the former, who have their prescriptions periodically checked by the committee, are liable to be surcharged for expensive drugs and appliances that would be regarded as necessary in the case of private patients, and that in the metropolitan areas fixed sums are granted, also periodically, to the local group of practitioners, and that any surplus at the end of such periods is regarded as the perquisite of the insurance practitioners concerned, and is so divided between them; and whether, seeing that under either method the interests of the panel patients must suffer, he will consider some method of remedying this state of affairs?

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no difference between the arrangements in force in London and in the provinces.

PANEL DOCTORS.

Sir JOHN LEIGH: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that it is the practice of panel doctors in certain parts of London to lock up their surgeries after a certain hour and depart to other districts, and thus to be inaccessible to patients requiring immediate attention; if this practice is in accordance with the terms of their agreement under the National Insurance Act; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir A. MOND: My attention has been called to certain cases of this kind, and I am having further inquiry made. Such practice would not be regarded as complying with the terms of service of insurance practitioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — COCAINE.

Dr. McDONALD: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that cocaine is not a drug which is essential to the
medical and dental professions, owing to the manufacture of many less toxic substitutes; and will he therefore take steps to prohibit the importation of so pernicious a drug into this country, if necessary, by legislation?

Sir J. BAIRD: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Home Office is in consultation with the Ministry of Health as to the need for cocaine in medical and dental practice, and I am not prepared at present to express any opinion as regards the suggestion in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, the importation of cocaine except under Home Office licence is already prohibited.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PROPERTY (GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the serious hardship caused by the continued appropriation of the private property of British-born wives of ex-enemy subjects; and whether, with a view to the property of innocent people being restored to them, he will arrange for an early adjustment of the claims of British subjects against the German Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. On the recommendation of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, whose Report has just been laid before the House, steps are being taken to set aside the property or its proceeds belonging to certain classes of German subjects, including those referred to in the question, in case it may prove possible to return it when British claims have been satisfied. In reply to the second part of the question, every effort is constantly being made to expedite the settlement of the claims of British subjects.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand that what the hon. Gentleman has just said applies to the British-born wives of other ex-enemy subjects as well as Germans?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It applies to the conditions contained in the Report of the Committee to which I will refer my hon. and gallant Friend for figures.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does it apply to the British-born wives of Austrians, Hungarians and Rumanians?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I shall want notice of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (CORRESPONDENCE AND INTERVIEWS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay papers showing the correspondence and minutes of interviews with French statesmen relative to the four questions of cancellation or funding of debt, the Turkish Question, Tangier, and reparation and sanction?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am unable to lay papers regarding the cancellation or funding of debt, and until the situation has developed no decision can be taken regarding the publication of correspondence on the Turkish Question. The desirability of laying papers in regard to reparation and sanctions is under consideration. In regard to Tangier, it is hoped that a conference will take place here in the latter part of next month, arid pending this discussion it would be premature to consider laying papers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could we get any papers laid on the question on the cancellation or the funding of the debts before the House rises—may we have these papers shortly?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say whether it is possible to lay papers before the end of the Session. At the present time I am not in a position to lay any.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that when the conference takes place in London on Tangier it is to be between the British and French Governments or between the British, French and Spanish Governments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Between the French, British and Spanish Governments.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Has the British Government suggested to the French Government that it is undesirable to proceed with the building of the fort at Tangier, in accordance with their order, until after the conference has been held arid a decision arrived at?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR.

Mr. C. WHITE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to pass into law this Session of Parliament a Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. WHITE: In view of the fact that this has been promised by the Government ever since they came into office in 1919, is this pledge not to be honoured before we come to a General Election?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of a pledge.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONOURS LIST

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses to review the present Departmental procedure in submitting names for the Honours List?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; we are not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the growing dissatisfaction in this House and outside in regard to the way in which these Honours Lists are made up?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have, been a long time in this House and at recurrent intervals I have heard dissatisfaction expressed, and have known allegations to be made, which, for the most part, I believe have been entirely unfounded. I do not know that this Government should hope to escape the fate which has befallen most of its predecessors.

Lord R. CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in that case, that the time has not really arrived for a full inquiry into these complaints which have constantly been expressed, with more or less foundation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Personally I do not think that an inquiry by a Select Committee, or a Joint Committee of the two Houses, into the exercise of the prerogative is desirable.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would it not he possible to indicate when announcing the honours the services for which they have been given?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That has been the practice in recent years.

Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for a discussion into the allegations made? There is great feeling in this matter. Would it not be much better that it should be ventilated rather than suppressed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to know exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "ventilated"? It has been ventilated pretty freely—at any rate, charges have been made pretty freely. I am not prepared, in present circumstances, to offer special facilities, and I am somewhat doubtful whether there is a general wish for them.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: What steps are taken to investigate the private characters of those persons whom everybody knows ought not to be submitted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, I am rather inclined to think that what everybody knows is apt to be a very false guide.

Colonel ASHLEY: How does it happen that nearly always it is only rich men who are made peers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the lists of peers for the last ten years, I do not think he will find that that is borne out?

Lord R. CECIL: The hon. and gallant Member said "nearly always."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the Noble Lord will allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put his own question in his own way. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that these allegations are not sustained.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that there has always been supposed to be a very strong connection between the Honours List and the party funds, and will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to have a discussion on the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to provide special facilities for this
or many other questions for which I am asked to provide special facilities, to the abandonment of Government business for the day, in order to enable some section of the House to raise a question in which they are interested—

HON. MEMBERS: All sections!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the action of the Prime Minister be challenged, the House can ask for the salary of my right hon. Friend to be put down, and can challenge his actions—

Lord R. CECIL: That will not be in order.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is in order to challenge the action of the Prime Minister upon the salary of the Prime Minister—the Noble Lord no doubt knows better than I do—but I should have thought it would have been in order to challenge the action of the Prime Minister, or the advice he tenders to the Crown, upon his salary. It is not possible for me—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a case where the prerogative comes in. It has been the rule that it is not possible, on the Prime Minister's salary, to raise questions about advice given to the Sovereign on these matters.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If that be so, Sir, then I think it would be a very grave matter for me to make a breach of the rule a special opportunity for such a discussion. Apart from that, it is quite impossible for me to give all these special opportunities. Hardly a day passes when which I am asked by some section of the House to allot a day, at the expense of the Government business for which we have been called together.

Lord R. CECIL: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether as a matter of order, the only way of raising this question is not by direct Motion in the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that would be the case, though I am not quite clear as to the form the Noble Lord suggests. I am sure it is the duty of the Chair to uphold the rule with regard to the prerogative.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVORCE CASES (ASSIZES).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 58.
asked the Attorney-General whether arrangements
have been made for the hearing of divorce cases at assizes; and at what date such arrangements will become operative?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): The Supreme Court Rule Committee has approved rules by which such divorce cases as are prescribed under the Act will be triable at Assizes. It is hoped that the rules will come into operation before the end of July so that cases may be set down for the Autumn Assizes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY RAILWAY AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the principle adopted in Palestine in valuing the railway work done by the British Army and charging that value as a debt against the present Government has been, or will be, adopted in regard to the railway or road construction and repair work done by the Army in Iraq, Kenya, Tanganyika, or Persia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): In the case of Iraq the answer is in the affirmative. In the case of Kenya, it has been decided that capital expenditure shall be borne on the Common Charges Account of Military Expenditure, the apportionment of which is under consideration. In the case of Tanganyika, the answer is in the affirmative, subject to the settlement of certain matters of detail which are being considered by the Colonial Office and the War Office. The situation as regards railway work in Persia is not a matter in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies is concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPIUM TRAFFIC, BRITISH NORTH BORNEO.

Mr. RAFFAN: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the League of Nations has made any inquiry of His Majesty's Government as to the traffic in opium conducted by the British North Borneo Company for consumption by the labourers on the plantations; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes drawing the
attention of the company to the undesirability of any administration under the British Crown profiting by this traffic?

Mr. WOOD: No, Sir, no inquiries have been received from the League of Nations relating specifically to North Borneo; but at my request the British North Borneo Company has from time to time furnished for the League of Nations information relating to that territory similar to that supplied regarding the Colonies generally. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that apart from the limitations imposed by the Charter, the administration of North Borneo is a matter for the company, and I would add that so long as the complete suppression of opium smoking in the Far East cannot be attained, it is, in ray opinion, essential that the traffic should be under strict Government control and that any profits should accrue to the administration rather than to private persons.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is it not extremely undesirable that this company should engage in this traffic?

Mr. WOOD: However undesirable that may be, it must be regarded as less undesirable than that this traffic should pass into private hands.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (CONCESSIONS).

Captain FOXCROFT: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is responsible for the granting of Palestine concessions?

Mr. WOOD: Responsibility rests with the High Commissioner, who exercises it subject to instructions from the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER WYE (POLLUTION).

Mr. BRIGGS: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that, as a consequence of the discharge of a tar-like effluent from the gasworks situate above Holme Bridge, Bakewell, Derbyshire, a large number of fish in the River Wye have been killed; and will he use his powers to prevent any recurrence of such discharge of poisonous effluent from this or any other source along the banks of the Wye?

Major BARNSTON (for Sir A. Boscawen): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is aware of the occurrence referred to, and understands that legal proceedings are pending. He has no powers to prevent the pollution of rivers, but it is hoped that by means of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, now under consideration in another place, more adequate powers may be conferred upon Boards of Conservators for preventing the pollution of rivers in their districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAT CATTLE AND DEAD MEAT (PRICE).

Captain FITZROY: 66 and 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he will state the price of fat beasts per cwt., and the price of home-killed beef for each month during the year 1921;
(2) whether he will give particulars showing the number of cattle of one year

MONTHLY AVERAGE PRICES OF FAT CATTLE AND DEAD MEAT IN ENGLAND AND WALES DURING THE YEAR 1921.


(Compiled from Reports furnished by the Market Reporters of the Ministry of Agriculture.)


—
Quality.
Jan.
Feb.
March.
April.
May.
June.




s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Fat Cattle, Live, per cwt.
1
106
8
105
11
104
4
104
11
101
6
94
8



2
96
6
96
5
94
7
94
4
94
10
85
2


English Beef (Wholesale) per cwt.
1
168
6
168
0
165
6
167
6
156
0
148
6



2
156
0
157
6
155
0
157
0
144
6
136
6




—
Quality.
July.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov
Dec.




s.
d.
s.
d.
s
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Fat Cattle, Live, per cwt.
1
84
1
84
5
76
11
67
6
62
8
62
5



2
74
9
74
2
66
8
58
1
54
0
52
7


English Beef (Wholesale) per cwt.
1
129
0
128
6
119
6
95
0
88
0
90
6



2
117
0
117
6
108
0
84
6
79
6
81
0

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSE SHOEING.

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that before the War farmers paid between 2s. 4d. and 3s. 6d. for shoeing all round for horses, whereas now they are charged from 9s. to 12s. 6d. for four shoes, although iron was never so cheap; and, seeing that this bears hardly on small carters, carriers, and other small traders, will he have an inquiry made into the matter?

old and under for the years 1919, 1920, and 1921.

Major BARNSTON: As the answers to these questions contain a number of figures, I will, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answers are as follow:

The classification in the returns collected annually in June is "Cattle, under one year (including calves)." The numbers of such animals returned in the three years 1919-21 in Great Britain and the United Kingdom respectively were as follow:—

Great Britain.
Great Britain.



No.
No.


1910
1,444,808
2,667,163


1920
1,123,298
2,319,388


1921
1,341,483
2,580,144

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) is aware that the charges of farriers have increased considerably since 1914, but as the Government have abandoned the policy of fixing prices, he does not think that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry into the matter. He would point out that this question was fully investigated at the end of 1919 by a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Trusts.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINING INDUSTRIES (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 71.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents for the period January, February, and March, 1922, and the period January, February, and March, 1913, occurring in mining industries other than coal mining or metalliferous mines, i.e., open quarrying; and whether the statistics of fatal and non-fatal accidents in 1922 in mines other than coal mines or metalliferous mines; i.e., open quarrying, show an increase when compared with the figures for the year 1913, having regard to the numbers of persons employed and the hours worked?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): In the first three months of the present year deaths from accidents at quarries more than 20 feet deep numbered 10 and the number of persons injured (excluding minor injuries) was 132. In the first three months of 1913 the figures were 16 deaths and 326 persons injured. There is no record of the hours worked at these quarries in either year or of the number of persons employed in 1922. But from such data as are available the relative number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, particularly of the latter, appears to have been considerably less in 1922 than in 1913.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND.

Mr. SUTTON: 72.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the coal industry in the Lancashire and Cheshire district have asked the Board of Trade or the Committee set up under Clause 20 of The Mining Industry Act, 1920, for an allocation in aid of wages from the miners' welfare fund in order to relieve the distress which prevails in that district; whether this request has been refused and, if so, for what. reasons; whether he is aware that the Law Officers of the Crown have advised that the Committee would be acting within their powers by making such a grant; and whether he will state the total sum paid into the welfare fund by the Lancashire and Cheshire district up to date and how much of this sum has been spent?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
affirmative. I understand that the application was refused by the Committee on the grounds that it was not the intention of Parliament, in instituting this fund, that it should be used for the purpose of augmenting wages, that the result of using it for this purpose would be to exhause the entire sum available in a, comparatively short time, without having made any lasting contribution to the social well-being of the miners as a whole. In refusing this application, the Miners' Welfare Committee acted upon their own responsibility and entirely within their rights as the independent body in whom Parliament vested the duty of allocating the fund. I am aware that the Law Officers of the Crown have advised that allocation for such a purpose would be admissible, so far as the terms of the Act are concerned. The total sum paid into the Miners' Welfare Fund from the Lancashire and Cheshire district is £87,376 11s. 4d., and the sum which, under the Act, must be allocated in the district amounts, with interest, to £70,627 10s. 10d. No part of this sum has at present been allocated, owing to the fact that no application, other than the application referred to in this question, has been put forward by the District Welfare Committee.

Mr. SUTTON: Is not the £70,000 of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken still in this fund; and as it has been produced by the Lancashire and Cheshire miners, why cannot it be used for keeping these men from starving, or is the only alternative of the Mines Department starvation for the men who have produced this £70,000?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. The position is that we do not think the hon. Member has rightly interpreted the intention of Parliament in passing the Act in assuming that this money was raised to be spent for that particular purpose.

SHOT FIRING (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the great number of accidents and the loss of life throughout the British coalfields caused by shots that have missed fire or blown out; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to make com-
pulsory the use of some of the safety appliances now on the market with a view to minimising this danger?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on the 15th June to a question asked by the hon. Member for Spennymoor.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS (TUBERCULOSIS AND DIABETES CASES).

Mr. EDGAR: 73.
asked the Minister of Pensions why longer notice has not been given that the Ministry of Pensions will.cease to be responsible, except in certain cases of pulmonary tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus, for the cost of special diet, where it has been medically certified to be necessary as part of the treatment provided by the Ministry for certain disabled men?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Between four and five weeks' notice was actually given. My right hon. Friend considers this period ample, and is not prepared to extend it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY OFFICERS' ACCOMMODATION, MARESFIELD.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the inadequate accommodation for officers at the signal training centre, Maresfield; whether he is aware that two officers are in many cases allotted quarters originally intended for one officer; and what steps he is taking to remedy this defect, in order to keep up the supply of suitable officers for this important corps?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I am aware of the shortage of accommodation at Maresfield, which is due to the fact that expenditure there is being advisedly and necessarily postponed pending decision whether the Signal Service Training Centre shall be permanently accommodated there.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (MEDICAL SERVICES).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for War what compensation is proposed for those D.A.D.'s M.S. of the Territorial Army whose appointments, originally made for a period of four years, have been prematurely terminated at the expiration of two years or less?

Sir R. SANDERS: Those Deputy Assistant Directors of Medical Services of the Territorial Army whose appointments, originally made for a period of four years, have been prematurely terminated from 1st March last, will be given as compensation for the professional loss involved in the premature termination of their Army contracts, a sum representing one-third of what they would have received in pay and allowances if they had been allowed to complete the term of their appointments.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUBS (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. IRVING: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Inland Revenue Department are supplying, or have at any time supplied, information to local justices or to the Magistrates' Association as to the sales of intoxicating liquors in clubs; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the clubs supply these particulars to the Inland Revenue for taxation purposes only, he will state the authority for disseminating information of this character?

Sir J. BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): I am having inquiry made in the matter and will communicate further with the hon. Member in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL, HUNWICK.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the result of the communications of the Board with the local authority and school managers with regard to the Church of England school at Hunwick, in the County of Durham?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend presumes the hon. Member refers to the case of the Hunwick school. He is awaiting the reply of the local education authority to communications which the Board addressed to them on 24th January and 15th March.

STATE-ASSISTED SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. WIGNALL: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education if an Order has been issued, without giving previous notice, withdrawing all grants for State-assisted scholarships; is he aware that many boys have been studying during the past two years for the examination that should have been held this month, and that the sudden withdrawing of the grants has inflicted a real hardship to these boys and their parents; and will he make arrangements so that the boys who had prepared shall sit for examination this year?

Mr. LEWIS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which my right hon. Friend gave on the 13th March and the 6th April to the hon. Members for West Fulham and Canterbury.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (SALARY).

Sir J. LEIGH: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds the salary of Sir George Newman, chief medical officer to the Ministry of Education, has recently been advanced to £2,500 per annum; what are the duties of Sir George Newman; if the appointment is a whole-time appointment; and by whom is the Department in which he is engaged controlled?

Sir A. MOND: Under an arrangement made when the Ministry of Health was founded, and very much to the advantage of the public service, Sir George Newman performs the duties pertaining to the posts of chief medical officer of the Ministry of Health and chief medical officer of the Board of Education.

The salaries before the posts were combined were

£


Principal medical officer, Local Government Board
1,500


Principal medical officer, Board of Education
1,800


Total
£3,300

It will be seen therefore that the cost to the Exchequer has been substantially reduced.

The appointment is whole-time. The medical departments of the Ministry of Health and Board of Education are controlled by the Permanent Secretaries of those Departments under the respective Ministers. Sir George Newman has the status of a secretary in the Ministry of Health and his salary was raised from £2,100 to £2,500 per annum as part of arrangements made for the whole service by the Treasury arising out of the Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is not this salary £500 in excess of the salary of the President of the Board of Education? What relationship does it bear to other salaries in the Department?

Sir A. MOND: As this official is subordinate to me, and not to the President of the Board of Education, the comparison should be with my salary.

Colonel ASHLEY: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify this increase of £500, in view of the statements made in the House that the country cannot afford the present cost of education?

Dr. MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that it is millionaires in this House who ask these questions about the salaries of men who have done great service for the country?

LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 83.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what action he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): My right hon. Friend is at present considering the Report of this Committee. He is not yet in a position to make any announcement as to the action he may take.

Sir J. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement on this question before the House rises, in view of the different education rates in different parishes of the same county?

Mr. MURRAY: There will be no undue delay, considering the complexity of the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER TIME.

Mr. TOWNLEY: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what foreign countries and British Dominions summer time has now been adopted as a permanent institution; and what form the Government inquiry into the working of the system in this country will take?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am unable to say definitely what countries have adopted summer time as a permanent institution. The last paragraph of the question appears to be due to some misapprehension. On the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend said an effort would be made to come to some arrangement between the urban interests and the agricultural interests, but such an inquiry as is indicated in the question was not contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. MILLS: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the election of a Parliament in Egypt is to take place; whether the Act of Indemnity will await the election; and whether martial law has meanwhile been suspended in regard to the free exercise of the political rights of Egyptians?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on this subject on 22nd May. In reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle East on 8th May, the constitutional position with regard to the passing of an Act of Indemnity was defined at some length. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on 27th March.

Mr. MILLS: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proclamation of martial law in Egypt of the. 2nd November, 1914, remains valid now that that country has become by the British declaration of 15th March, 1922, an independent sovereign State?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply is in the affirmative.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Under-Secretary inform the House as to the legality of the action of the British Commander-in-Chief, in view of the fact that Egypt is supposed to have been declared a sovereign State?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall be happy to do that if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESCOT BOARD OF GUARDIANS (OVERDRAFT).

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the serious financial position of the Prescot Board of Guardians, Lancashire, he will favourably consider extending the period of two years' sanction for repayment of loan or overdraft of £65,000 with interest to at least five years under Section 3 of the Local Authorities Financial Provisions Act, 1921?

Sir A. MOND: Further inquiries are being made into the present financial position of the Prescot Union, and I will consider the question of extending the loan period when these inquiries have been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL AND LOCAL FINANCE.

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state a date on which legislation will be introduced to relieve the burden of the ratepayers by adjusting the relations between the Imperial and local exchequers?

Sir A. MOND: I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to the prospect of legislation on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA AND JAPAN.

Mr. CLYNES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that an official Russian Government organ published a statement on 24th May to the effect that the remnants of Semenoff's army are arriving in Vladivostok with the aid of the Japanese; whether, in view of the uneasiness which this development will cause to the Russian Government, His Majesty's Government will make repre-
sentations to Japan to withdraw her troops from Siberia; and whether His Majesty's Government regards the action of the Japanese Government as a violation of the pledge given both at the Washington and Genoa Conferences?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of the accuracy of the statement referred to by my right hon. Friend. The second and third parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (BRITISH TRADE COMMISSTONER.

Mr. HANNON: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the suggestion put forward by the Nairobi chamber of commerce that, the four British territories in East Africa should be asked to share the cost of the British Trade Commissioner for East Africa will be adopted; and, if not, what steps are being taken both to safeguard our markets in these regions and to assist the local producers?

Mr. WOOD: Before my attention was drawn to the Report of the suggestion of the Nairobi Chamber of Commerce, I had invited the Governments concerned to consider the question of contributing towards the cost of maintaining the British Trade Commissioner's office up to 31st March, 1923. I have not yet received replies from all of the Governments. I may observe that, if an arrangement is made on these lines, it can only be temporary. I do not think that as a permanent arrangement it would be desirable that the Trade Commissioner should be subject to local ties and control.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. LANE-FOX: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any case of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred amongst the fat cattle imported from Ireland during the last three months; and whether any outbreaks of the disease during that period can be attributed to Irish stores being admitted into this country?

Major BARNSTON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part,
there is no evidence to show that the disease was introduced into Great Britain by Irish store cattle.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMITHFIELD MARKET (MEAT SALES).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he, is aware that it was admitted in evidence before the Royal Commission by representatives of the National Federation of Meat Traders that beef killed in Holland or Denmark is sold in Smithfield as home killed; and, if so, are any steps being taken to put a stop to this?

Major BARNSTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative in answer to the second part, it is an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, to apply to any merchandise a trade description which is false within the meaning of that Act, and offenders can be prosecuted by any persons interested. If sufficient evidence of a specific offence were brought under the notice of the Ministry of Agriculture, it would institute proceedings under the Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, 1894.

Oral Answers to Questions — LUNACY (VISITING COMMITTEES).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to co-opt members of visiting committees, and to provide for the appointment of women as members of visiting committees.
I apologise to the House for detaining it a short time, but my object in asking leave to introduce this Bill is so simple that I hope when the House has heard what little the Bill proposes it will at once assist in getting it placed on the Statute Book. The object of the Bill is to enable County Councils and other local authorities to co-opt a certain number of persons from outside their bodies to serve on Asylum Visiting Committees. As the law stands at present, public bodies such as county councils can co-opt certain outside persons to serve on education and other committees, and guardians can co-opt a certain number of persons to serve on their boards. But this does not apply to lunatic asylums in the counties of the country. There are no fewer than 50 per cent. of the
county councils which have no women members, and in less than 50 per cent. no woman has been appointed on the Asylum Visiting Committees. When we consider that the majority of the unfortunate inmates of these asylums are women, it certainly seems to me—and I think it will so appeal to the House—it is to be regretted that not a single woman should be serving on the committees in so many cases. It is quite true there is a provision in the Act of 1913 which enables local authorities to appoint women, but this is conditional on them appointing their visiting committees to asylums as committees to deal with the care of the mentally defective. Anyone who has had experience, as I have, of the work of local authorities knows that councils very often rather object to reconstructing the whole of their committee for the purpose, perhaps, of enabling some women to be appointed. That is my only object in bringing forward this Bill.
May I, in conclusion, point out one thing which I think will weigh with the House? A great number of these unfortunate women have to be taken to these asylums, far away from their homes. Their relatives, very often, are not rich people, and cannot visit them very often. It is hard enough, in these circumstances, to place them in asylums that are far away, but I venture to think that many a man, who has to put his wife or his daughter in one of these asylums, would feel a considerable amount of relief in his mind if be thought that, at any rate, there were a few ladies on that visiting committee, instead of its being a committee consisting only of men.
Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to co-opt members of visiting committees, and to provide for the appointment of women as members of visiting committees," put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Newman, Mrs. Wintringham, Lieut.-Colonel Hurst, and Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle.

LUNACY (VISITING COMMITTEES) BILL,

"to enable local authorities to co-opt members of visiting committees, and to provide for the appointment of women as
members of visiting committees," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION BILL [Lords]).

Report and Special Report from the Joint Committee, in respect of the Fraud and Falsification Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read, with Minutes of Evidence.

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Audit (Local Authorities, Etc.) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the counties of Carnarvon and Denbigh." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords].

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],

Stretford and District Gas Board Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Naval Discipline Bill [Lords] and the
Wireless Telegraphy and Signalling Bill): Rear-Admiral Adair, Mr. Amery, Captain Viscount Curzon, Major Farquharson, Mr. John Guest, Mr. Kellaway, Dr. Murray, Sir Douglas Newton, Sir Henry Norman, and Mr. James Wilson.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (during the consideration of the Allotments Bill [Lords]): Mr. Foot, Mr. Hayward, and Mr. Holmes; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Acland, Mr. Newbould, and Mr. Trevelyan Thomson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Third Day.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the House if he will give the committee now, before we start discussing the Bill, some idea as to how far he proposes to proceed with the Committee stage to-day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): After the two late sittings that we have had, I should be very reluctant to ask the House to sit late again, and, if we can make reasonable progress, I think we must try and rise as near to Eleven o'clock as possible to-night. I am not making any pledge, but I do not want to fix a particular point to which we should go, because, if we make reasonable progress, I think the House is entitled to expect to rise early on one night.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night we wanted to continue the Debate, but, unfortunately, some of the Government supporters who had Amendments down were not present, and, therefore, Progress was reported, in order that those Amendments might be discussed fully today? Is he, further, aware that we desire to get a discussion and a Vote on certain new Clauses that we have put on the Paper? It was perfectly well understood, when we came to our arrangement as to how far we should go last night and to-day, that those Clauses would be reached, but if we rise at Eleven we shall not reach them, unless the Government closure their friends instead of closuring us, as they were doing last night. Can the right hon. Gentleman make any arrangement—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is entering into a discussion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I simply wanted to ask a question. Can the right hon. Gentleman make any arrangement whereby, if we rise at Eleven without
reaching the Amendments to which we attach great importance, we shall be able to have our next day, or two days, on the Finance Bill, not next week, but the week after, so that they may be discussed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I certainly do not want to initiate a discussion, but it is a little difficult to know how far I can answer the hon. and gallant Member's question.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be better to move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Hogge.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member's question—and in putting it he made a good many statements which, if he will permit me to say so, were of doubtful accuracy—was whether I would arrange that the fourth day, granted at his request for the Committee stage of the Bill, should be, not next week, but the week after. That is a request with which I am sorry to say I cannot concur. It is very desirable, when we deal with a Bill of this kind, that we should, as far as the Rules of the House and the necessities of Supply permit, deal with it consecutively, at any rate as regards a particular stage. As at present advised, I propose to take the fourth day, which, in response to the hon. and gallant. Member's request, we agreed to give for the consideration of the Committee stage of this Measure, on Monday. As regards what happened last night and the night before, I was in the precincts of the House on both occasions, and was in the House itself last night. The night before last an appeal was made, as I understand, publicly, across the Table, for an extra day, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that. he would give a fourth day, on the understanding that the Committee stage would be finished in those four days—he will correct me if I am wrong—without sitting beyond a reasonable hour. We sat last night till past three o'clock before the Motion to report Progress was made. I make no sort of complaint or suggestion that there was any kind of breach of faith.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: indicated dissent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman says he does, but, at any rate, it will not alter what I am going to say. My right hon. Friend, making one of those bargains which are customary across the Table of the House of Commons, and are always honoured when so made, said ho would give an extra day on the understanding that the business was finished within those four days, within reasonable hours. I think that hon. Members might have expected that we should not have sat as late as three o'clock in those circum- stances, but portions of the Bill were more contentious, perhaps, or gave rise to greater difficulty than one would have expected, and we had this late sitting. At, I think, something near half-past three, my right hon. Friend moved to report Progress, and stop the business for the night.

Mr. W. THORNE: For what reason?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because we had already sat past a reasonable hour, for which my right hon. Friend had himself stipulated as a condition on which he gave his assent to the fourth day. I say again that I am not charging any section, or suggesting against any section of the Committee, that there was any breach of the arrangement made. I think circumstances were too strong. The Amendments took longer than any of us anticipated. But to suggest, as the hon. and gallant Member said he did, that on the part of the Government there was a breach of faith because they did not try to sit after four o'clock, or after half-past three, is to suggest that which is palpably incorrect on the facts which are known to the Committee. I am very sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman should for a moment have made such a suggestion. I think, having regard to the two late nights we have had, we ought not to ask the House to sit late to-night, if that can, by any possibility, be avoided and if there is a fair prospect that we can finish on Monday, and unless it be necessary to sit late to-night in order to be sure of finishing on Monday—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is all right, If you can sit to-night sufficiently late to divide the work there is to be done equally between to-day and Monday, we shall be satisfied. The difficulty at
present is that if you rise at Eleven o'clock to-night, you cannot finish on Monday without sitting till Five o'clock.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to say what exactly is the time likely to be taken by any particular stage of the Bill or any particular Clause or Amendment or new Clause. I feel that, in the interests of hon. Members who have made sacrifices these last two nights in order to get on with the business, we ought not to ask them, unless it be absolutely necessary, to sit late to-night. A considerable portion of the time yesterday was taken by supporters of the Government, but, after all, they are in a considerable majority and, perhaps, may sometimes be allowed to express their views and to raise points of interest to themselves or to their constituents. But if there was waste of time or if the discussions were needlessly prolonged, it was not so much yesterday, when we were discussing for the most part new matter of considerable complication, but rather the day before.

Mr. HOGGE: When you made no complaint.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When we made no complaint, though we might have done, at the repetition of Amendments, speeches and arguments which have been familiar to the House for several years past on every stage of the Financial Resolutions and of the Bill in Committee and on Report.

Mr. W. THORNE: That is only part of the political game.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I be allowed to explain what I meant when I said I thought there had been a breach of faith on the part of the Government? When the Government gave us an additional day for discussing the Finance Bill in Committee, an arrangement was come to whereby they were to get certain stages on the two days. Last night they were to get to Clause 26. [Interruption.] The point was that we were dividing up the three days that remained into equal sections so that every section of the Bill should be adequately discussed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman omits an essential part of the statement my right hon.
Friend made, that he consented to this on the understanding that we finished at a reasonable hour each night. When we speak of a reasonable hour in Parliamentary phraseology we do not mean 4 o'clock in the morning.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We were trying to divide up the work so that each part of the Bill would be adequately discussed, and we were to get to the end of Clause 26 last night and to the end of the new Clause dealing with the Beer Duty to-night. I will not say that was an absolute pledge, but it was an agreement come to with the Chief Whip and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Labour party last night took no part whatever in obstruction. As a matter of fact, the real reason why we sat till half-past three was that the Government were forced by their own followers, after a Debate lasting nearly two hours, to withdraw Clause 14, and, after continuing to sit in order to take the very serious Amendments on Clause 16 till three o'clock in the morning, the moment that was over the Government reported Progress, because the next Amendments were down in the name of their own followers who were not present. If they had gone on last night for 10 minutes they would have got through the next seven Clauses and got down to the stage at which they promised to get in order to complete that section of the Bill. They did not go on for the very sufficient reason that their supporters were not here to move their Amendments.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: We were here.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member was here, but he was the only one. Therefore to-day we are to go through a short day, dealing with a small amount, and then on Monday, the last day for discussion of the Bill, the Committee will have to sit till five or six in the morning to do all the rest of the work. That is not fair to the House of Commons. The arrangement come to to divide the remaining portion of the Bill into equal sections was a right arrangement, and should have been stuck to by the Government.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says an arrangement come to across the Floor between his representatives and the Patronage
Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been broken. My right hon. Friend entered into no arrangement for the partition of the Bill.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 17.—(Amendment as to allowance for Repairs.)

(1) The following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (1) (b) of Rule 7 of No. V in Schedule A (which relates to the allowance for repairs):

"(i) where the owner is occupier or chargeable as landlord, or where a tenant is occupier and the landlord has undertaken to bear the cost of repairs, by a sum equal, where the amount of the assessment does not exceed twenty pounds, to one-fourth part of that amount, and, where the amount of the assessment exceeds twenty pounds but does not exceed forty pounds, to one-fifth part of that amount, and where the amount of the assessment exceeds forty pounds, to one-sixth part of that amount; and
(ii) where a tenant is occupier and has undertaken to bear the cost of repairs, by such a sum, not exceeding one-fourth, one-fifth or one-sixth part of the amount of the assessment, as the case may be, as may be necessary to reduce the amount of rent payable by him:

Provided that the amount by which an assessment is reduced shall not, in the case of an assessment exceeding the amount of twenty pounds but not exceeding the amount of forty pounds, or of an assessment exceeding the amount of forty pounds, be less than it would have been if the amount of the assessment had been twenty pounds or forty pounds, as the case may be."
(2) In paragraph (2) of the said Rule 7, for the words "one-sixth" there shall be substituted the words "one-fourth, one-fifth or one-sixth, as the case may be," and in paragraph (1) of Rule 8 of the said Number V in Schedule A for the words "one-sixth part" there shall be substituted the words "one-fourth, one-fifth or one-sixth part, as the case may be."
(3) This Section shall not have effect as respects Income Tax for the year 1922–23 and shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, cease to have effect on the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "not" ["This Section shall not have effect"].
This Clause deals with an additional allowance for repairs.

Major GRAY: Are the Amendments in my name passed over?

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee stage came on rather unexpectedly soon. I called the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he was not then present. I am afraid it is not possible to go back.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am quite ready to give way.

The CHAIRMAN: I have called on the hon. Member. We cannot go back.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The additional allowance is not going to be made for this year. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) is a great authority on these questions, and I do not know whether he is going to agree with me that it ought to be allowed. I do not really see why the Government has introduced a provision saying that it shall only take effect next year and onwards for the following seven years. It is possible the Government will argue that the reason they are not giving it for the coming year is that the present assessment is very low indeed and that it is not necessary to give this additional allowance until a re-assessment has been made, but he may have forgotten that the cost of repairs has been perfectly enormous during the last few years. This increased cost of repairs entirely neutralises the existing low assessment, if the existing assessment be really too low. I should also like to point out that not only have the repairs been excessively and abnormally costly during the last few years, but landlords have been under the Rent Restrictions Acts and have not been able to meet the higher cost of repairs out of increased rents. Therefore, I feel that this additional allowance ought not to be postponed till next year, but ought to be allowed in the present year and the following eight years. I should very much like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this question and to tell us exactly why it is that the allowance is not going to be made this year.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I feel that this Clause and the next Clause do not cover quite the same ground. The point raised by my hon. Friend is material and important to this Clause, because it is one which increases the statutory allowance of one-sixth to one-fifth and one-fourth for small houses. The reason, I understand, is that owing to the greatly increased cost of repairs, in practically all eases where owners or occupiers of small
property have to carry out the work, the cost exceeds the one-sixth allowance, which is, on the old rent, restricted under the Rent Restrictions Acts. This is not principally a question of equity and fairness. The question of equity and fairness can be dealt with under the provisions of Section 69, which are being extended by the next Clause, and any overpayment can be recovered. Under the present law, if a man spends, instead of one-sixth, one-fifth or one-third, he can by a reclaim get his money back, and therefore there is no actual loss. It is thought better during the present emergency—this is not a permanent Clause like the next one; it is a temporary Clause to deal with an emergency—to save the great amount of waste of time and tissue due to the presentation of innumerable claims for repairs on small property. Therefore, although the same considerations do not refer to the next Clause because you get your repairs under the five years' average, what I said on the Second Reading applies to this Clause. If I am right in supposing that the main object of this Clause is to save expense, time, and trouble, there does not seem any very good reason for postponing it for a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us very fairly and sees the thing over the whole ground, so I do not wish to do more than put the point before him and ask if he and his Department have given it full consideration. I am aware that the assessments are going to be increased, and that may make some difference in future years, but the new assessments will not apply this year, and the fact that it will be possible to make reclaims which the alterations, when they do come in, will not affect is a special reason for making this Clause operative at once.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): The situation is really as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). The proposal to make an increased allowance for repairs is due to the fact that in recent years there have been difficulties experienced in connection with these allowances, and it has been made plain that, so far as the properties with which the Clause deals are concerned, the allowances ought to be raised. There are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has said,
means by which the hardship to which the hon. Member referred—those cases where the actual expense is shown to be greater than the allowance and where a claim can always be made on sufficient cause being shown—can be met. The reason we have postponed the actual operation of these increased allowances till next year is this. It is recognised, I think, that at the present time the assessments do not represent actual values. There have been no re-valuations for a long period, and I do not think that anybody can question the fact that the present assessments are not adequate. Accordingly, we are going to make a revaluation, and we propose to bring the two things—the new valuation and the increased allowance for repairs—into operation at the same time.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I would like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman's Department have made a reassessment since the War. An increased valuation was made in 1919.

Mr. RATCLIFFE: I would also like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the assessments in Bradford have recently been increased by something over 30 per cent., amounting in actual figures to between £500,000 and £600,000. It would be grossly unfair, therefore, when ratepayers or property owners are being assessed at that higher valuation, that this Clause should not operate for another 12 months.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major GRAY: May I take this opportunity of suggesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, before the Report stage, he might look into an apparently small question to which I have already drawn the attention of the learned Solicitor-General. It is a matter which affects the London area particularly. Under the Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869, certain deductions in respect of repairs may be made from the assessment for the payment of rates. This Clause provides for deductions in respect of repairs from the assessment for the payment of Income Tax. It is desirable that the range of deductions for rates and Income Tax should be the same, and they are the same excepting for two very
small items in this Clause. The deduction for rates is in regard to sums below £20 and below £40. In this Clause, the words are "not exceeding £20" and "not exceeding £40." The result is that in regard to the deduction for rates it will be one-fifth on £20, and in regard to the deduction for Income Tax it will be one-quarter on £20. The same difficulty will arise when the next figure of £40 is reached. It will be a somewhat larger deduction for Income Tax than for rates.
I am advised by the Local Government Committee of the London County Council that this will lead to considerable administrative inconvenience. A man will never be able to understand why he pays on a certain amount of assessment for rates and on a different amount of assessment for Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should so arrange the Clause that it should read "up to £20" and "up to £40," in-accordance with the Amendments which I have upon the Paper and which I apologise for not being in my place to move. I can assure him that the financial experts on the London County Council advise me that it would be a very substantial concession to the payers of rates and of taxes in the Metropolitan area. As he will recognise, the alteration cannot be made in regard to the payment of rates, because that is already fixed by the Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869, which we cannot to-day amend, but a slight Amendment of this Clause would bring the rating procedure and the taxing procedure in the London area into harmony, which, I take it, is very desirable from an administrative point of view. Incidentally, the Exchequer would lose nothing, because, whatever difference there might be, it would be a slight gain to the Exchequer, because it would alter by one unit the scale upon which the payment would be made. It is a comparatively small point, although one of importance in the Metropolitan area, and I hope that, when the Clause comes up on the Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to make this small concession.

Sir R. HORNE: I have studied the Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member as closely as I can, and, after very carefully reading them with the original words, I have come to the conclusion that, in substance, there is no
difference between his proposal and that contained in the Clause. I am not quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend has adverted sufficiently to the proviso in the Clause, which really prevents the very kind of effects that he seeks to deprecate. I am not aware of the precise form that the London rating takes, and it may be that there is some technical element which might make it easier if our Clause were expressed in the same language as the London Clause, but it seems to me plain that it has the same effect. The wording is different, and it might be an advantage to have the wording expressed in the same form, but as to that I express no opinion. I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend might get into touch with the Inland Revenue authorities on this matter, and, if he can make plain to them a difference which is not plain to me, I shall be pleased to give it consideration.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Amendment as to allowance for maintenance, repairs, etc.)

(1) The following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph (3) of Rule 8 of No. V in Schedule A (which grants relief in certain cases in respect of the cost of maintenance, repairs, etc.):—

"(3) This Rule shall apply to any land (inclusive of farmhouses and other buildings, if any) or house, the assessment on which is reduced for the purpose of collection:

Provided that no repayment of tax shall be made under this Rule in respect of the cost of maintenance repairs, insurance or management, if or to such extent as that cost has been otherwise allowed as a deduction in computing income for the purposes of Income Tax."

(2) This Section shall not have effect as respects Income Tax for the year 1922–23.

Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "paragraph (3)," and to insert instead thereof the words "paragraphs (2) and (3)."

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. and gallant Member is moving this Amendment, in order to get his second Amendment discussed. They hang together.

Sir J. HOPE: Yes. My second Amendment reads as follows:
For the purpose of this Rule the term 'maintenance' shall include the replacement of farmhouses, farm buildings, cottages,
fences, and other works, if and to the extent to which the replacement is necessary to maintain the existing rent; and the term 'replacement' shall include replacement according to an improved standard necessary to meet modern requirements, or to comply with any Act of Parliament or any regulations or bye-laws of a local authority.

The CHAIRMAN: I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should argue both together.

Sir J. HOPE: I am moving the Amendment mainly in order to give assistance in the improvement of agricultural housing, especially in Scotland. It is a well-known fact, especially in Scotland, that agricultural housing conditions are far from good. That has been confirmed by the Royal Commission on Housing, and is an acknowledged fact amongst Members of this House. It is also agreed that though a good deal has been done for housing in urban areas, little or nothing has been done since the Armistice to give public assistance in the improvement of housing in agricultural areas. In agricultural areas owners are doing their best to improve the conditions, which are far from satisfactory. A certain minimum standard is laid down by this House in regard to housing, such, for instance, as the condition that there should be a water closet or an earth closet in every house, that there should be a decent water supply to the houses occupied by agricultural labourers or other labourers, and that there should be a coal place, a larder, and a scullery. Owners, where opportunities arise, are anxious to put those houses which do not comply with these conditions into the required condition, and in some cases the inspectors of Income Tax have allowed the money expended with this object as a legitimate charge in the maintenance claim for repairs. But this is not always allowed. Some inspectors question the putting in, for instance, of a decent water supply into an agricultural labourer's house as being an improvement, a capital expenditure, which cannot be charged in the maintenance claim.
My Amendment would ensure that such sums expended could only be charged in the maintenance claim where there is no increase of rent. This seems to me to be an absolute safeguard. Further, the Amendment would provide that the charge could not be made in the maintenance claim if the improvement of the
house goes above the standard laid down by Parliament—the minimum standard of decency and comfort. On these grounds there is no danger of any illegitimate charges being put into the maintenance claim. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to accept the Amendment. If he thinks, or if his advisers are afraid, that my Amendment might open too wide a door, I trust he will give us an assurance that he will instruct the collectors of Income Tax throughout the country that where money has been expended on the improvement of houses in order to bring them up to, but not above the minimum standard laid down by this House, for decency and comfort, and where there has been no increase of rent, that expenditure shall be allowed as a charge in the maintenance claim. This is a reasonable proposition. I only ask that where the money is spent on bringing the house up to the present-day statutory standard of decency and comfort, the money so expended shall not be taxed by the Central Government.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Leslie Scott): So far as I can follow the purpose of the Amendment, it falls under two heads, a part which is not necessary, because it is already the law, and a part which cannot be acceded to because it proposes to allow deductions for Income Tax purposes in respect of expenditure that is essentially capital expenditure in character. This maintenance deduction, historically, was introduced as an additional allowance in regard to houses of low rental in the year 1909. At different dates since then it has been raised by various Acts to houses of higher rental, differing in different districts. The object of the Clause is to remove the money limit in regard to the rental of houses. The broad effect of the Amendment would seem to be to ask for the recognition to some extent of the Rule as it is to-day under Schedule A of the Income Tax, but to go beyond that and to make a loophole in the Rule for allowing deductions for what is really capital expenditure. The phraseology of the Amendment in so far as it differs from the phraseology of the Rule is this. The Rule says:
(2) For the purposes of this Rule the term 'maintenance' shall include the replacement of farmhouses, farm buildings, cottages, fences, and other works where the
replacement is necessary to maintain the existing rent.
The Amendment says:
For the purpose of this Rule the term 'maintenance' shall include the replacement of farmhouses, farm buildings, cottages, fences, and other works, if and to the extent to which the replacement is necessary to maintain the existing rent; and the term 'replacement' shall include replacement according to an improved standard necessary to meet modern requirements, or to comply with any Act of Parliament or any regulations or bye-laws of a local authority.
In so far as the Mover of the Amendment has in mind expenditure which the landlord is bound to incur in order to meet the minimum requirement of the health authorities, or in order to maintain the existing rent, the Amendment is not needed, because he can get that allowance under the law as it stands to-day. In so far as he contemplates expenditure made by the landlord on improvements on his estate, the Amendment cannot be accepted. The one fundamental principle in Income Tax law is that expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure can never be deducted. The comment on the Amendment is that partly it is unnecessary and partly it is objectionable for the, reasons I have given. For these reasons, I regret that we are not in a position to accept the Amendment.

Lord R. CECIL: I am anxious to understand this matter. I may have misunderstood the Solicitor-General, but I can only go by the Amendment as I read it. As I read the Amendment, the first part is a repetition of the existing Rule, and the second part deals with a case where you are replacing an existing farmhouse or an existing building, and where you primâ facie come under the Rule with regard to charges for capital improvements not being allowed in the maintenance claim, but where, owing to various building laws or other statutory requirements, you have to provide certain things, and you cannot replace that building exactly in the same way as it existed before. You have to put back something better. You cannot replace it at all unless you replace it according to the building laws, and the Mover of the Amendment suggests that in that case, you ought to be entitled to deduct the cost of doing that as part of the cost of replacement. I understood the Solicitor-General to say that in consequence of the building laws where you make an improvement, which
might well be, you are not to be entitled to deduct, the cost of so much of the replacement as is in fact an improvement. That seems to me to be rather hard.
A landlord or an owner finds it necessary to replace a building. So far as he is concerned he would be quite ready to replace it exactly as it was before. Then comes in the statutory requirements which say, "You must not do that, You must put back an improved building." The standard of building has been raised since the original building was erected. That happens in the vast majority of cases where an old building has to be replaced, and you have to put in something better. It seems hard that a man is not entitled to charge in the maintenance claim so much of that expenditure as is to be attributed to the demand for improvement, although the improvement is not necessarily attributable to what he wishes, but to what he is compelled to do. I understand from the Mover of the Amendment that some Income Tax officials allow the whole of that replacement cost as maintenance, but others take a narrower and stricter view and say that in so far as it is a replacement of what was existing you can charge it as a maintenance, but if there is an improvement you are not so entitled.

Sir J. HOPE: I thank the Noble Lord for the way in which he has put the case. The question largely turns on what is an improvement. I do not move this Amendment with any idea of suggesting that Income Tax should not be paid on real improvements. What is an improvement? Take an agricultural cottage in which there is no water laid on, and the cottagers have to fetch the water a distance of 100 yards or so. There may be an indifferent earth closet, and no water closet. There may be no building of any sort in which to store coal. In replacing the house you put in a proper water supply, so that the housewife has not to go out in the snow to fetch the water, or you provide decent sanitary arrangements, and a proper place in which to store coal. All these things are demanded in regard to the building of new houses. Some inspectors say that because the house has been improved in the course of being replaced by the introduction of modern sanitary and necessary conditions, the charges for putting in a water
closet, or water supply, or a coal house constitute an improvement which is not a legitimate charge as maintenance.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope that the Chancellor of Exchequer and the Solicitor-General will consider this matter before the Report stage, and see if something cannot be devised to meet what is the wish of everybody concerned and-grant this allowance where the replacement is really a replacement under modern conditions and there is no increase of rent. Trouble arises through the difficulty of interpreting the words which the Solicitor-General read out from the Rule. What exactly does a replacement amount to? It seems to be quite obvious to the Committee that you cannot in replacing a house replace something that is worn out by something that is also worn out. The fact is, that in some districts the inspectors of taxes interpret the Rule fairly liberally, and no difficulty arises. In another district an inspector of taxes interprets the Clause very strictly. Several cases have come under notice in which an allowance has been refused because some simple fitting in a house or some part of a house has been replaced with something a little different or better than before. Surely, that kind of interpretation is not desired.
It was recognised when this Rule was made, when it was discussed in Debate—and I believe that. if the Solicitor-General refers to the Debate he will find that it was understood—that there would be some little difficulty about interpreting this, and that there was a distinct understanding that it should be liberally interpreted so as to give an encouragement to replacement on better lines than before. I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give an assurance that inspectors of taxes will be instructed to interpret liberally. The existing words themselves must be rather stricter than it is necessary to interpret them, because a large capital expenditure on something entirely new could not be treated as expenditure of income with a deduction for Income Tax purposes. We do not want so much to get an extension of language, which might give rise to litigation, as to get a re-assurance that if this Clause cannot be amended—that is a matter of terminology on which the Inland Revenue Department would have to be consulted—a liberal interpretation shall be given and that these replace-
ments by something a little better in the matter of housing shall not be penalised. If a man who replaces something by an, expenditure of £20 is going to get off the whole of that, while if he expends £25 he is not going to get anything at all, that is putting a premium on replacement with something worse, which I am sure there is no desire to do.

Sir L. SCOTT: The position has been accurately stated and is well recognised by the Government, and there is no difference of view whatever between the Inland Revenue Authorities and hon. Members who have addressed the Committee. The truth is that we all want to see replacement done not of the old identical thing that was there serving its purpose for 100 years, but of something that serves the same purpose, and no mere than the same purpose, but of a standard suitable to modern progress. In practice the question is a question of fact as to whether the thing you see there is replacement of the thing that was there before, though of a better quality, or whether in point of quantity it is something larger and more expensive.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it the real test whether in fact the same rent is paid?

Sir L. SCOTT: I am afraid that I could not conceive that that is the real measure. It is a limiting condition in the sense that, if as a result of what is called replacement, there is a substantial rise in rent it is a fair inference that it is something more than replacement, but I do not think that the converse applies. One may conceive the case of a substantial addition being made in the way of replacement which was, though possibly economically, there might be a justification for the alteration, replacement from capital expenditure. For instance, there might be a farmhouse with four or five rooms replaced with a farmhouse of eight or ten rooms. Obviously there is capital expenditure in addition to replacement. Probably a higher rent would be demanded, but it might not be. You cannot take the actual rent as the criterion of the particular replacement, because there are all sorts of other conditions affecting the rent of the whole farm which may intervene and upset the criterion. The truth is that the only way to give effect to what is the intention of the rule,
and of the Committee, and of the Government, is that those officers of the Inland Revenue who have to interpret the rules should have administrative instructions as to the way in which to approach the question, and on behalf of the Government I am authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that instructions of that character will be given, the rule remaining as it is, if the Amendment be withdrawn.

Sir J. HOPE: With that assurance of the Solicitor-General, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 (Relief from Income Tax in respect of National Savings Certificates and Ulster Savings Certificates) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Interest paid on arrears of Excess Profits Duty not to be allowed as a deduction.)

In the computation of any profits or income for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any interest paid on arrears of Excess Profits Duty or Munitions Exchequer payments.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Derby-hire (Mr. Holmes), to leave out the word "no," is out of order, as it amounts to a negation of the Clause.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HOLMES: May I point out the effect of this Clause as it stands? If an ordinary single individual carrying on business takes advantage of the arrangement to pay arrears of Excess Profits Duty in instalments, he pays 5 per cent. without deduction of tax, which is equal to 6, per cent. He cannot deduct the interest from the profits of business, whatever the interest may be, before he is assessed to Income Tax. But assume that he is a partner in a firm, or even a single individual making large profits, he cannot deduct the interest before he pays Income Tax, and he cannot deduct it from his income before he pays Super-tax, so in his case he loses also on the Super-tax, and the interest which he pays would be about 9 per cent. or, perhaps, even 10 per cent. In the case
of a limited company it is not allowed to deduct for Income Tax or Super-tax or Corporation Profits Tax. I may ignore for the time being the private company when it pays Super-tax, having regard to the fact that Clause 14 has been taken out of the Bill. The limited company loses 5s. in the £ Income Tax. It also loses the Corporation Profits Tax, so that the figure might amount to 7 or 8 per cent. Therefore people who were led by the circular and by the announcement in the Press to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to allow them to pay their Income Tax by instalments at the rate of 5 per cent., will find that the actual rate varies, according to whether it is the case of a private firm, a partnership whether successful or not, or a limited company, from 6⅔ per cent. to about 10 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to find a method by which in every case, whether that of a limited company, a well-to-do firm or a small individual trader, the same rate of interest should be paid to the Exchequer.

Mr. GOULD: I am in agreement with what my hon. Friend has said with regard to the effect of the non-allowance of interest on Excess Profits Duty for Income Tax purposes on the amount of interest charged. I believe that the Chancellor is more or less actuated by fear in fixing the rate of interest that he may get the interest and may not get the principal, but I can assure him that this is a very serious matter, and many companies which want to take advantage of the deferred payments system entered into obligations some years ago and during the past year, and they were intensely relieved when they saw that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to give time for payment and charge only 5 per cent. But when they come to examine the rate of interest and see that it is 6⅔ per cent., as my hon. Friend has pointed out, and in some eases may go up to 10 per cent., it is a very serious matter indeed, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should make the rate of interest 5 per cent. and let it stay at that, and that that would be equitable for all parties concerned.

Sir W. PEARCE: I would add my opinion in support of what the hon. Member has said as to the importance of this question of the arrears of Excess Profits
Duty. It is a very serious matter for a large number of trading companies. The interest which they pay on these arrears is very severe. Seeing that the general rate of interest has fallen very much, even since this Clause was drafted, I hope that the Chancellor may be able to make some concession in this respect, which I would like to assure him is an admirable one.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I take the same view as the hon. Member for Lime-house (Sir W. Pearce). A body with which I am connected think that a flat rate of 3½ per cent, will be sufficient. As the Clause stands it is not a reasonable one. By prohibiting deduction in respect of interest paid on arrears of Excess Profits Duty, the rate of interest charged is brought up to 6⅔ per cent., and even more, instead of 5 per cent. Six and two-thirds per cent. is an unreasonable price to charge for the accommodation which is given. The Treasury have given this concession of deferred payments—I believe in order to give a direct incentive to people to raise this money as quickly as they can—but many people are not in a position to borrow at all, and for that reason I add my voice to that of those who seek to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce what we consider a burden which is unduly severe.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) was not quite accurate in stating what was the announcement I made in December last with regard to this matter. I made it perfectly plain then that the charge of 5 per cent. interest upon the unpaid instalments was to be without deduction of tax. There need have been absolutely no misapprehension in the minds of the industrial people of this country as to what precisely the proposal was. I understood my hon. Friend to suggest that I had created in the minds of the public, by what I had said, an impression that they were to pay 5 per cent. with a deduction of Income Tax upon that.

Mr. HOLMES: I did not make that statement, because I knew it was not the ease. The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a question of mine on 20th February, and cleared away any doubt on the subject.

Sir R. HORNE: Evidently then I have been on a false point. The reasons which led me to make the proposal which I made were, of course, that the business community was finding itself very much hampered by the large arrears of Excess Profits Duty still to be paid. I had various suggestions made to me by representative bodies of business people, and the proposal, 'I afterwards made was based upon some of the suggestions put before me. Those who saw me did not suggest any particular rate of interest, but when I came to deal with the proposal, it seemed to me that if the arrears of Excess Profits Duty were to be allowed to stand for a period of years, necessarily some arrangement would have to be made with regard to interest. What then was an appropriate rate to charge? It is true that to-day the rate of 5 per cent., plus the Income Tax upon it, looks a high rate. At the time when I first made the proposal it did not look so high, and business men at that time were, no doubt, finding a great difficulty in borrowing at less than 5 per cent. To-day they are in a position in which, I understand, they can borrow at something less than the 6⅔ per cent. at which my proposal worked out. That is a good thing.
The criticism was levelled at me that the capitalists of the country were being allowed a latitude which was unnecessary, and that this was an example of the ordinary methods of the Government in granting concessions to people who were rich and doing very little for the rest of the people of the country, and I was asked what assurance I had that the instalments of Excess Profits Duty would be paid in the end, or that the course I was pursuing would be any benefit to the State and the taxpayer. I pointed out what seemed to me to be the very obvious consideration connected with the matter. If the rate of interest is higher than that at which the trader is able to borrow from his bank, obviously my chance of getting the arrears of Excess Profits Duty paid quickly is very much greater. The trader would prefer to go to his bank, to borrow the money, and to pay off the arrears rather than have imposed upon him the burden of paying the higher rate of interest upon the arrears. It is equally obvious that if the rate of interest were reduced to too low a point, the trader, instead of paying off the instalments, would have every inducement to allow the
arrears to stand and to pay interest on the overdue instalments rather than to pay them off. Accordingly, the Exchequer would necessarily suffer. My returns in the present year would, under such circumstances, turn out to be less than I had estimated.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) was, no doubt, a symptom of the difficulties and troubles in which the commercial community find themselves. He says that the difficulty is for people whose credit otherwise might be regarded as good, to borrow at all if the banks are aware that a large sum of arrears of Excess Profits Duty is still due. If that be so, I am willing to give some consideration to the argument. I quite appreciate that the difficulties of raising the necessary finance might be such that some companies would find themselves seriously embarrassed or hampered. The problem is to discover what is the best way in which I can at once serve the interests of the taxpayer and preserve the trading community from these difficulties. The proposal which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire made is one which I do not think I can accept. If I read his two Amendments together, that on Clause 20 and the other on Clause 24, the result would be that we should have a rate of interest, not of 5 per cent., but of £3 15s. per cent. ultimately as the flat rate of tax. To that I cannot assent. I am willing to make some concession. Obviously, I must not make a concession which will result in giving the trader a clear inducement not to pay the instalments of Excess Profits Duty. I must have a rate at which there will be some encouragement to the trader to pay the instalment rather than to rest upon his present position and to pay the interest. What I suggest is this: I shall reduce the rate from 5 per cent. to 4½ per cent. There will still be no deduction for Income Tax. As the Committee will see, that will work out at a rate of 6 per cent. over all. The reason why I do not fix the rate at 6 per cent. and make a deduction for Income Tax is that administratively the scheme is much more easily worked in the way I suggest. That is the greatest concession which in the circumstances I am able to make.

Mr. GOULD: There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman has not men-
tioned and which is of very great concern to us. That is in relation to the private concern liable for Excess Profits Duty. Although he has made a concession to corporations we have not received any material benefit. For even under the 4½ per cent. arrangement, the rate of interest will amount now approximately to 9 per cent. For that reason I hope it is possible for him to make some special allowance to the concerns mentioned. If, for instance, he could give authority for the extension of the time of payment, it would help. There is a great desire on the part of companies to maintain credit and faith and to pay off as quickly as possible their liabilities. I refer particularly to the engineering and shipbuilding industries. The time allowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is all too short for the arrears to be wiped off. I accept with grateful thanks the reduction of the interest to 4½ per cent., provided it is understood that the arrangement is not to be altered from time to time. If we accept it, we must be in the position of knowing that if next year this time the rate is raised again, we have a right to review our determination to pay off the instalments. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would consider an extension of the time for payment in certain cases to a period of—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that subject cannot be pursued on this Clause.

Mr. HOLMES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed the whole point that I was trying to make. He says that the rate he is charging people is 6⅔ per cent. The only person to whom this statement applies is the individual who has an income of less than £2,000 a year and does not pay Super-tax. The man who pays Super-tax pays, not 6⅔ per cent., but 7, 8, and even 9 per cent. interest on his arrears. As far as a limited company is concerned, it cannot deduct the interest on Excess Profits Duty arrears either for Income Tax or Corporation Profits Tax. A limited company must always be paying more than 6⅔ per cent. Corporation Profits Tax varies in its incidence, and a company may pay anything up to 8 per cent. or more. It cannot pay as little as 6⅔ per cent., unless it is carried on at a loss and is not paying Corporation Profits Tax at all. The reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his proposal is an administrative reason. He is
charging everybody a different rate, and is proposing a sliding scale according to the size of a man's income and whether or not it is a company that is concerned. That hardly seems to be an equitable arrangement. Surely, whether it is a private company, a public company, an individual or a partnership, everyone ought to pay interest at exactly the same rate.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,'' put, and agreed to.

5.0 P.M.

Clauses 21 (Allocation of income to charity where residue is not paid to charity until after one year of death of testator), 22 (Determination of annual values for purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A and Inhabited House Duty for 1923–24), and 23 (Parishes for purposes of assessment, 1923–24), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Payment of Excess Profits Duty by instalments.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may, on an application made in that behalf by any person by whom any Excess Profits Duty under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915 (in this part of this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), is payable, authorise the payment of the duty by means of quarterly instalments within the period of five years ending on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-six.
(2) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may as a condition of granting an application under this Section require the applicant to give such security for the due payment of the instalments as they think fit, and may at their discretion at any time revoke any authorisation granted under this Section.
(3) If any person is aggrieved by the refusal of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to grant an application made by him under this Section or by the revocation of an authorisation granted to him under this Section, he may at any time within fourteen days after the date on which notice is given to him by the Commissioners of the refusal or revocation, as the case may be, appeal against the refusal or revocation to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax and the decision of the Special Commissioners on the appeal shall be final.
Any person intending to appeal to the Special Commissioners under the foregoing provision shall give notice of his intention to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
(4) Simple interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum, without deduction for Income Tax, shall be chargeable on Excess Profits Duty as from the date on which the duty becomes payable or in the case of duty
1355
which became payable on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, as from that date.
Any such interest shall be payable in money and shall be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty from the person by whom the duty in respect of which the interest is charged is payable.
(5) Any instalments of Excess Profits Duty and any interest on arrears of Excess Profits Duty payable by any person under this Section shall be paid on such dates as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may fix.
(6) For the purposes of this Section, any reduction made after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, in the amount of an assessment to Excess Profits Duty shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be deemed to have been made as on that date or as on the date on which the duty under that assessment became payable, whichever date is the later:
Provided that any reduction of the amount of duty payable, made in pursuance of the provisions of Part II or Part III of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act. 1921, shall have effect as from the thirty-first clay of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, respectively, or from the date at which the claim under those provisions could have been proved, whichever is the earlier.
(7) In valuing any stock or bonds transferred in satisfaction of Excess Profits Duty under Section thirty-four of the Finance Act, 1917, no account shall be taken for the purpose of the deduction to be made under proviso (a) of Sub-section (4) of the said Section of any interest accruing due after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
(8) For the purposes of this Section, Excess Profits Duty shall be deemed to become payable on the expiration of two months from the date on which the assessment to duty is made.
(9) This Section shall, subject to the necessary modifications, apply to munitions exchequer payments as it applies to Excess Profits Duty.
(10) This Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "five" ["within the period of five years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
This Amendment and the Amendment which follows it on the Paper go together, and, in effect, ask the Chancellor to give ten years for the payment of instalments instead of five. I am in entire sympathy and agreement with him in regard to fixing the rate of interest on arrears at such a rate as will encourage payment, and when I spoke in Committee of Ways and
Means, I said I thought he would, as a result of the rate of interest, get more duty paid this year. But there are undoubtedly a large number of people who have so locked up their profits in new plant and machinery that they are finding difficulty now when trade is not going well. They cannot possibly pay the full amount that is due, and if trade revives they will be still more unable to pay, because they will require all the money they have got for the payment of wages and the purchase of raw material in order to get started again. Having regard to the fact that the Inland Revenue have the right to ask for security in such cases, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should allow the instalments to be spread over 10 years for the purpose of assisting businesses such as those to which I have referred.

Mr. GOULD: I am heartily in agreement with the last speaker. When I was ruled out of order just now, I was particularly concerned about mentioning the difficulties with which certain industries are faced. I am quite certain that in some trades and businesses there may be large sums of money in hand and it may be felt by the Inland Revenue Department that such money should be used for the purpose of paying taxation arrears, but the real trouble is that at the present moment many of these industries have nothing to do and every penny of their funds is required for the ordinary current running of the business. The matter is one which has come up at various boards in which I am interested, and we felt that, even with a higher rate of interest, it was better for us to take advantage of the deferred scheme than to put ourselves in such a position that when we get a revival of trade—as we hope to shortly—we should not be able to utilise all the money we have in the creation of employment. My right hon. Friend is anxious to assist us as much as possible. He will confer great benefit upon industry and give us something in the nature of encouragement if he accepts this Amendment and extends the period for 10 years. It means a great deal, because at present it requires a lot of courage to face even the ordinary business risks, and if we can get the sympathetic consideration of the Inland Revenue and the Chancellor, I am certain that industry as a whole will do everything possible to repay such consideration.

Mr. HANNON: I cordially support the Amendment. In the Midlands we have a very large number of small firms who have been very bard hit by the War and by circumstances arising out of the War. It would be a distinct advantage to those firms in connection with any development of trade which may take place in the near future, and it would help in extending and increasing their business efforts if this concession were made. I think the arguments submitted, à propos as they are of the whole country, ought to convince the Chancellor that he will do a very great service to industry if he meets us in this way. We know how much the Chancellor desires to help trade in this country. Every business man and business organisation is agreed that no Chancellor has been so willing to listen to practical and helpful suggestions from business men as the present Chancellor. Here is a case in which, by making a comparatively small concession, he can confer a great advantage on a very large number of small firms throughout the country.

Mr. WATERSON: I could not altogether follow the last speaker in his remarks. He said he was particularly interested in the advancement of certain firms of small size in the Midlands which have been extremely hard hit by the War. I submit if firms have been hard hit by the War, there is very little Excess Profits Duty for them to pay. It is only those people who have benefited greatly out of the War who are called upon to pay this duty.

Mr. HANNON: I said, "and circumstances arising out of the War."

Mr. WATERSON: I did not catch that, but I accept the statement of my hon. Friend. I hope in this matter the Chancellor will show his "Government whip," and will not give way to the cry which has been raised from the various vested interests so well represented in this House. From one's ordinary observation it would appear that the only concessions which the Chancellor has made during the Debate have been to those people who are always clamouring for some benefit. 1f the Chancellor were to stick to his ground on this occasion it would be for some succeeding Chancellor to review the position in a few years' time, and then, if it were found that the position fore-
shadowed by the previous speakers existed in absolute fact, I am sure everyone would be prepared to support efforts for the relief of the industries to which these hon. Members have referred. At the present time, however, I hope the Chancellor will stand firm and retain the period of five years. At the expiration of five years the matter can be reviewed, and if the hardship really applies we will then be able to see what is the best thing to do.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: I hope the Chancellor will listen to those who are speaking in favour of the Amendment. I do not think it is generally known that there is a very close connection between this question of the instalments of taxation and the question of finding employment. I have known as an actual fact a case where the finances of a business were in such straitened circumstances, owing to the fact of having to pay instalments of taxation, that the only way in which they could pay was temporarily—for a few weeks—to shut down the business. That has happened in many cases, and it means that the fact of taxation having to be paid at a particular time, and to a particular extent, is the direct means of causing loss of employment which the firms concerned are exceedingly anxious to give.

Sir R. HORNE: As one hon. Member said, I am most anxious to listen to the suggestions of the trading community on matters of this kind, and everyone is aware that great embarrassment is being caused at the present time. I am not convinced, however, that there would be any real gain derived from extending the period, and certainly 10 years is too long a period of time to allow for the payment of Excess Profits Duty, so far as present circumstances show. It may he that as time goes on the matter will become plainer, and it may be thought necessary to give a, further extension. In the meantime, I think it would be unwise to increase the period to any figure over five years, but I have got no very confident opinion upon that matter, and if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will consider the case further between now and the Report stage, and if I can see that there is really a sound foundation for what has been said in support of the Amendment, then I shall give it my attention.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Chancellor expresses the hope that between now and the Report stage he will consider the extension of the five years' period. Can he tell the Committee the amount of arrears of Excess Profits Duty at the beginning of the present financial year?

Sir R. HORNE: It is a very large sum. I could not give the actual figure, but certainly it is a large sum, and I am sure my hon. Friend will make any use he likes of its size.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am trying to find out what effect an extension of the period will have on the revenue of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to receive a sum of £30,000,000 odd from the Excess Profits Duty. If the five years' period were extended it would have some bearing on that revenue.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend will remember that under present conditions the rate of interest which is being charged offers an inducement to the trader to pay rather than allow the arrears to stand.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
This Sub-section means that if a concession is granted to a debtor to the extent of his being allowed a certain period in which to pay his debt, the Inland Revenue authorities may require security and also may revoke any authorisation granted. I quite agree that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, on behalf of His Majesty's Treasury, ought to have some earnest of good will, but this makes it a condition of granting an application. That officials who know their duty and who will, if it is necessary, take some sort of security, will go as if they were bailiffs in charge of the property. This puts a chain around the man's leg with the power in the hands of the Inland Revenue at any time to revoke his authorisation. It is holding a sword of Damocles over a man's head. I think we can, with some justice, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to modify that Sub-section, at any rate, by rendering it less easy for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to revoke any authorisation which is granted under the Clause. Otherwise, the Clause may destroy a man's credit and may
ultimately ruin him. It will certainly paralyse him and prevent him borrowing money from his bankers with which to buy raw materials for his business, and for that reason I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention to the effect of the power which the Commissioners have to revoke that authorisation. If he could see his way to soften that Clause down, I think he would be wiping away what might ultimately be. a great hardship.

Sir R. HORNE: I am sure the hon. Member will readily agree that some power of this kind is necessary.

Mr. SAMUEL: I said so.

Sir R. HORNE: I think he will also agree that it would not be in the interest of the Inland Revenue Department to exercise this power harshly, but the kind of case which he suggests, where the effect of revoking the power to pay by instalments might have a most detrimental effect on a man's credit, is the very kind of case in which the Inland Revenue Department would desire to avoid acting harshly.

Mr. SAMUEL: It might go further and result in the security being called in, in which case it might put the trader in a great difficulty.

Sir R. HORNE: As I say, after all, there is no creditor which has so large an interest in the solvency of the man indebted for arrears of Excess Profits Duty as the Inland Revenue Department, and the whole tendency of that Department would, in such circumstances as the hon. Member has described, be rather to prevent anything happening which would injure the solvency of their debtor than that they should bring about circumstances in which he would be unable to pay any further instalments. Accordingly, I think the hon. Member may take it as a certainty that no harsh act would be likely to be taken by the Department under any power which they have got under this Sub-section. If, however, he can suggest any form of words at a later stage which would, as he says, soften this particular power, I shall be glad to consider them, and in the meantime I think he may assure himself that there will be no arbitrary or harsh exercise of that power on the part of the Inland Revenue Department.

Mr. SAMUEL: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. I might suggest some words which would compel the Inland Revenue Department to give three, six, or nine months' notice, or some notice, so that the, revocation should not take place in a hurry or in an arbitrary manner, in order to give the man at any rate some time in which to look round.

Sir R. HORNE: I will give consideration to that suggestion.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "duty" ["Excess Profits Duty"], to insert the words
to be paid by instalments under this Section.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed at the beginning of the year that he would allow those who could not pay Excess Profits Duty to pay it by instalments over a period of five years, and that he would charge 5 per cent. interest without deduction of tax, but he is doing something more. He is asking that, if a firm or company up to the present time had not yet been assessed to Excess Profits Duty for their final accounting period, owing to some difficulties on one side or the other, directly that assessment was made, even though the firm or company did not want to pay on the instalment system, he should take power to charge interest from the time the assessment was made. I do not think it is intended that after all these years of Excess Profits Duty people who do not want to take advantage of the instalment system should have to have interest accruing from the date on which the assessment is made against them, and my Amendment is to make it clear that this 5 per cent. interest is to be charged only in the case of firms who accept the offer of the Inland Revenue Department to pay their duty by instalments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has in previous Acts got every remedy he wants against those who do not accept the instalments system and yet do not pay up their Excess Profits Duty.

Sir R. HORNE: I confess that I was in some difficulty in appreciating the point of the Amendment until I heard the hon. Member's speech, and I now understand that what he wants is that since no interest has been charged on arrears of
Excess Profits Duty in the past, upon people who have some difficulty in paying, it would be unfair now, in cases where assessment is only now being made, to charge them, as from the date the duty becomes payable, interest upon any arrears that may subsequently accrue. I appreciate the point. I cannot agree that there is a departure from the practice which has been pursued previously of doing nothing which in any way seems harsh in the way of urging payment upon people who are not in a position to pay, but, on the other hand, if interest is to be paid by those who are to pay by instalments, it is clear that it would be absurd to allow people who are not under the obligation to pay by instalments to get off paying interest altogether. The result of your action would be that nobody would choose to pay by instalments at all, and nobody would pay any interest.

Mr. HOLMES: The right hon. Gentleman, under the 1915 Act, can step in at once in such a case as that. All I am trying to do is this. A man, to-morrow we will say, has his final accounting period settled and an assessment of £2,000 made against him. What I want is that if he pays the Chancellor in the ordinary way on the 1st August he shall not have a demand note for interest from the date at which the assessment is made up to the 1st August. if the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds on the 1st August that this man is not paying he can put the law into operation against him, and the man would either be compelled to accept the instalment system and pay interest or legal process could be issued against him in the usual way. I only want to protect the cases where assessments are now made and where a reasonable period may be given for payment before the Chancellor of the Exchequer acts.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend's Amendment goes much further than the case he has just made, because it would really have the effect of making it incumbent only upon those who pay by instalments to pay interest as well. Obviously, that would be an error, but I am willing to consider what I can do to cover the case to which he has referred, where a person pays his Excess Profits Duty within a reasonable period after it has been assessed. Obviously, it would he a great
concession to go further and to give an inducement to people not to enter into any arrangement about paying by instalments, because in that way they would escape the payment of interest.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25 (Right of appeal as to amount of deficiencies or losses) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 26.—(Amendment of s. 38 (3) of 5 d 6 Geo. 5, c. 89.)

Where the interest or any part of the interest in any trade or business of any person, being the proprietor thereof or a partner therein, passes by a voluntary disposition inter vivos made by that person or under his will or on his intestacy to the husband or the wife or any lineal descendant of that person, that last-named person shall, for the purposes of Sub-section (3) of Section thirty-eight of the principal Act (which allows a repayment of or set-off against Excess Profits Duty in case of a deficiency or loss), be treated as if he were the person from whom the interest passed.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. Would it be in my power to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to allow me to draw attention to something which looks like a drafting oversight in the earlier part of this Clause? The Clause refers to a disposition made by a person "to the husband or the wife," and so on. Ought not the words "or for the benefit of" to be put in before "the husband"? Otherwise, the Clause does not include cases where only the income of shares passes to the wife for life.

The CHAIRMAN: It is for the hon. Member to move to insert certain words if he wishes to do so. It cannot be discussed without an Amendment.

Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to move, after the word "to" ["on his intestacy to"], to insert the words "or for the benefit of."
My reason is that if these words are not put in, the Clause does not include cases where only the income of shares passes to the wife for life.

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot quite follow the point of the Amendment. It seems to me that all the cases meant to be covered are contained in the phraseology of the Clause as it stands. It is a case in which
a business is transmitted, and the question arises as to whether the person to whom the business is transmitted would have the opportunity of obtaining a setoff in respect of losses incurred against the amount of Excess Profits Duty paid in a previous period. Under these circumstances, I confess I cannot quite follow the effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not a lawyer, but it is a question of life interest.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the point raised by the hon. Member is really covered by the earlier words in the Clause, "Where the interest or any part of the interest."

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper to Clause 26, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett)—
after the word 'Where,' to insert the words the ownership of a business has nominally changed hands, but there is substantial identity of interest between the old owner and the new owner, such new owner shall, for the purposes of Sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the principal Act, be treated as if he were the old owner, and where'"—
is out of place. The natural course is to put such amplifications as this after the Section. The same point can be raised on the next Amendment on the Paper.

Major BARNETT: May I point out that Clause 26 is an Amendment of Section 38, Sub-section (3), of the principal Act? The principal Act is the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, which establishes the Excess Profits Duty. What I have embodied in my Amendment, I submit, can only be put in the place where it is. What I have put forward does not involve a change of ownership at all. There is a substantial identity of interest, and I submit that the proper and only place for this Amendment is at the beginning of this Clause.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. You have already put an Amendment relating to subsequent words in this Clause, and I understand my hon. and gallant Friend wants to move an Amendment in the first line of the Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: That is so. It may be that I omitted to see that the hon.
and gallant Member had a new point to make. I ruled that the natural place was at the end of the Clause. If I am wrong, I am afraid I cannot go back on it now, but, of course, there is the usual remedy on Report.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
and in ally other case where there has been a change in ownership of a business, repayment of or set-off against Excess Profits Duty shall be made to the new owner in a similar manner, if there is, and to the extent to which there is, substantial identity of interest by reason of persons beneficially interested in the old owner being beneficially interested in the new owner.
This Amendment arises as the result of a case known as the Gittus case, which was decided in the House of Lords on the 18th April, 1921. I will point out what, has arisen as the result of that case. In the original Act, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, by which Excess Profits Duty was first imposed, Section 38 reads as follows:
There shall be charged, levied, and paid on the amount by which the profits arising from any trade or business to which this Part of this Act applies,
and so on. I want the Committee to note that it refers to "any trade or business." Then, at the beginning of Section 39, the Act describes the kind of trades and businesses that will be liable, and those that will be exempt. It says:
The trades and businesses to which this Part of this Act applies are all trades or businesses (whether continuously carried on or not) of any description,
and so on. Then, in Section 45, in Subsection (2), it is enacted:
The duty may be assessed on any person for the time being owning or carrying on the trade or business.
I want the Committee to note those words. In Section 38, Sub-section (3), the right is given of repayment or set-off, that is to say, a man is liable in a given year to pay Excess Profits Duty, having made more profit that his pre War standard, and if in the following year he made a profit below his pre-War standard, he would be entitled to get a proportionate amount of Excess Profits Duty, which he had already paid. If in a given year he was below the standard, and, therefore, not liable, he had a set-off in any year in which he became liable to Excess Profits Duty in respect of any deficiencies in previous years, that is to say, the amount by which
his profits in previous years were below his pre-War standard. That, we may take it, is the position of the law with regard to the payment of Excess Profits Duty; that persons who would be assessed, namely, trades and businesses, had the right of repayment or set-off. The Gittus case, which was decided in the House of Lords, in April, 1921, was in respect of a wagon builder named Gittus, of Penistone, Yorkshire. The business belonged to his father, who died, leaving it to his son. The father had paid Excess Profits Duty. The son succeeded to his father's business, in which he had been previously employed, made a loss, and claimed repayment of the Excess Profits Duty which his father had paid. This was refused on the ground that it was not the same person. It was refused because of the actual words in the Act of 1915 with regard to this question -of set-off. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read Sub-section (3) of Section 38, to which this refers:
Where a person proves that in any accounting period which ended after the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, his profits have not reached the point which involves liability to Excess Profits Duty, or that he has sustained a loss in his trade or business, he shall be entitled to repayment of such amount paid by him as Excess Profits Duty in respect of any previous accounting period, or to set off against any Excess Profits Duty payable by him in respect of any succeeding accounting period such an amount as will make the total amount of Excess Profits Duty paid by him during the whole period accord with his profits or losses during that period.
The point to which I want to call the attention of the Committee is that, whereas in the first Section Excess Profits Duty was levied on trades and businesses, and those who were liable under Section 39 are referred to as trades and businesses, it is held that this set-off or repayment should apply to a person, and it was on that that the Gittus case turned. The effect of the Gittus case was that where a man had been carrying on business in his own name up to, we will say, the end of 1916, and had paid Excess Profits Duty, and then turned his business into a private limited company, taking all the shares himself, by so doing he lost all his right to reclaim Excess Profits Duty. That is about the most extreme case one can give, but it would apply to all similar cases. Four men in partnership forming a company and each having 25 per cent. of the shares in the limited company, lose all right of set-off
or repayment as the result of the Gittus case, and the injustice, the inequity, of it was aggravated by the fact that a limited company right through is treated for Excess Profits Duty as the same entity. A, B, C and D may be four shareholders in a private company carrying on trade or business. They may sell all their shares to E, F, G and H. The proprietors become entirely different, but E, F, G and H can get back, if they make a loss, the whole of the Excess Profits Duty paid by A, B, C and D. One knows perfectly well that in large public companies the shareholding is almost completely changed between 1914 and 1921; yet in those cases the money is paid back, and, except for administrative concessions, to which I am coming in a moment, if a man turned his own business into a limited company, and though no one has ever taken a penny out of it, he has no right to recover the Excess Profits Duty which he has paid.
Last year this decision of the House of Lords was given just as the Budget was introduced, and, in an effort to get a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I moved an Amendment on the 20th June, 1921, to reverse the Gittus case. I said frankly that that was the purpose of it, and the proposal I made then was that, instead of a person having the right to recover Excess Profits Duty, each trade or business should have the right. The entity should remain the trade or business, and the owner for the time being should have the right to obtain repayment, just as he had the liability to be assessed if he made excess profits. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied on that occasion. I had suggested it was possibly a question of drafting when the 1915 Act was before the House, and that no one noticed how the use of the word "person" would affect the future administration of the Section, but the Financial Secretary said:
There is no question of it being a result of thoughtless drafting. I should be inclined to say that the word "person" does really carry out what is the bedrock principle of the Excess Profits Duty, that it is a charge personal to the man who pays it, and the man who carries on the business, and that for very practical reasons it cannot be attached to the business as an entity distinct from the person or persons who carry on the business. I do not really think there will he any dispute between the view I have advanced, and that advanced
by the hon. Member, as regards the great majority of ordinary cases of the transference of a business to a successor.
Then he went on to say:
I quite agree that there would be hardships possible in the too punctilious application of the Statute in some cases. I believe they are not hardships which it is possible to frame legislation to overcome, but they more approach matters of administrative action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1921; cols. 949 and 951, Vol. 143.]
That was a sort of promise given as a result of that Amendment last year. On the 20th February this year I put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
What instructions he has given to the Board of Inland Revenue for dealing administratively with hard cases which are primâ facie governed by the Gittus case in respect of claims for the repayment of Excess Profits Duty, in accordance with the promise made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 20th June, 1921?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied:
The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have been instructed to deal administratively with eases of the character to which the hon. Member refers. The cases coming within their purview are numerous and present widely divergent features, and no detailed instructions could be framed to cover the various circumstances arising. Broadly speaking, however, where there has been a change of ownership of a business, repayment of Excess Profits Duty is made if there is, and to the extent to which there is, substantial identity of interest between the old and the new owner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1922; col. 1526, Vol. 150.]
That is still carrying out the idea of a person having the right to repayment. That answer of the right hon. Gentleman was printed in most of the well-known newspapers of the Kingdom, and a construction was put upon it by business people which is quite different, I understand, from the construction which the Inland Revenue authorities themselves put upon it. They are construing this in an extremely narrow sense. The words which the Financial Secretary used were:
If there is, and to the extent to which there is, substantial identity of interest between the old and the new owner.
The Inland Revenue say that if a man has been carrying on a business and turns it into a company and holds 80 per cent. of the shares, then they recognise that that is substantial identity of interest, but if, say, there are four partners in a firm, each of whom has a quarter share in
the partnership and they turn themselves into a limited company, and hold 25 per cent. of the shares each, that is not substantial identity of interest, because no man has more than 25 per cent. of the new ownership. That surely, is a misconstruction of the words of the Financial Secretary, and are, I say, narrow in the extreme.
I want to give some instances which are, perhaps, more to the point in exhibiting the inequality and injustice than mere general statements. I want first to tell of a partnership in a well- known town in the North of England where there were four partners, all having various shares in the business. In 1918 they formed themselves into a private company and took shares in that private company in the exact proportion of their share in the private firm. No one has ever had anything to do with the business except themselves, or has taken a penny out of it. The four men have been partners for years, yet because none of them have 50 per cent. or 40 per cent. of interest in the company, they are denied any repayment of Excess Profits Duty which they paid before. The second instance is that of a big company in Yorkshire with a capital of £500,000. They had distributed very small dividends, had put large sums to reserve, and had a reserve actually more than double the capital. They wanted fresh capital during the War for extensions so they decided to form a new company with £2,000,000 capital. They decided that each shareholder should have two bonus shares for each one held, which absorbed £1,500,000, on condition that they subscribed for one new share per share, thus bringing in £500,000 new money. This arrangement 99 per cent. of the shareholders accepted. One per cent. renounced the arrangement. The rest of the old shareholders remain in that company to the extent of 99 per cent., and in the exact proportion as before, yet they are denied any return of Excess Profits Duty resulting from the narrow reading of the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the question put to him.
The third illustration relates to a company in Scotland. A number of the shares were bought by someone interested in the trade, but the original shareholders remained behind, and it was not,
indeed, a change in the company at all. In that case, as in the case of the companies I have explained, the company was admitted as of the same entity, and therefore it was said the Excess Profits Duty would be repaid. It was found, however, when four-fifths of the shares had been actually paid for that this man was buying, that the other one-fifth could not, under the will of the founder of the business—made about 60 years ago, by which the shares were to be handed down from generation to generation—be transferred for fear that certain grandchildren, on becoming 21, might object to the transfer, and it was decided to cancel the whole transaction. The money was paid back, a new company was formed, exactly the same, without any promotion money paid, and so on; the transaction was simply to get out of the difficulty, and affairs went on exactly as under the old company, but no Excess Profits Duty could be returned. The fourth case relates to a company in Cheshire where one individual carried on a business. He died in September, 1916, and his wife carried on the business until 1st June, 1919—a period of nearly three years. Then she formed the business into a limited company. She and her sons took 96 per cent. of the shares themselves. They afterwards admitted one or two outsiders with fresh money. She and her sons still hold 79 per cent. of the shares in that family business, yet they have been refused all repayment. This is one the cases where they have actually gone into liquidation and been wound up. There were two private companies, one in London and the other in Manchester. They found their businesses almost identical in the way of profits and assets. They therefore agreed to form a company with £250,000 capital. Of this, £200,000 was to be paid-up capital. Two Shareholders in the one works took £100,000 worth of shares, and, I think, five shareholders in the other took the £100,000. The businesses were simply amalgamated. They were all working partners in their companies, seven all together. There was no difference whatever in the businesses except that the two firms came together and worked both, and had paid Excess Profits Duty, yet because they amalgamated, there being, as I say, no alteration whatever in their businesses—although their accounts were kept entirely
separate—they are refused all repayment of Excess Profits Duty.
My last example is one of a firm that is joined to three private companies. They agreed to a basis upon which they would amalgamate. They took shares in their new company in exactly the same way as I have described. There was no alteration practically in the shareholding during all the years for Excess Profits Duty. Each separate business had prior to amalgamation paid Excess Profits Duty, and the accounts are still kept separately and separately audited; yet although they have the figures and there is no confusion whatever, and they can be put before the Inland Revenue, the repayment of Excess Profits Duty is entirely refused. I suppose the answer will be, as it was last night from the Solicitor-General, that it costs money. The right hon. Gentleman justified Clause 14, and, I think, another Clause, on the ground that certain people were trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxation and that they were making other people pay their share for them. This seems to be a case in which we are making certain of the taxpayers pay a further share of the taxes which we ought not to ask them to do. We say, "We are going to cut down the Income Tax, and do this, that and the other, and we are going to make you pay for it. By the construction put upon the Gittus case the Inland Revenue are going to make those concerned unable to recover. "Therefore," they say, "we are going to reduce income-tax—at your expense."
I want to point out to the Solicitor-General that the effect of the Gittus case was to say this: that the right of repayment is a personal one; it belongs to the individual who has paid the Excess Profits Duty. The result of the speech last year of the Financial Secretary, his answer to me in February, and the actual judgment in the Gittus case, and the wording of Section 38, Sub-section (3), of the principal Act shows that this right of repayment now generally accepted is a personal one—personal to the person who has already paid the Excess Profits Duty. Let me read a portion of Lord Cave's Judgment in the House of Lords. He said:
The relief there provided is given to a 'person' and that person must prove a deficiency in 'his profits' in order to be entitled to a return or set off in respect of duty paid or payable 'by him.' The object of the Sub-section is expressed to be
to make the total amount of duty paid by him 'during the whole period accord with his profits or losses' during that period. In my opinion it would be doing violence to the express terms of the Act to construe these expressions as including a previous owner of the business. There is in this Statute just that 'personal note' which in the case cited to your Lordships (Scottish Shire Line v. Lethem) (1912, 6 Tax Cases 91) was found by the Court of Session to be absent from the Statute there in question. This being so, I agree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Rowlatt, and adopted by the Court of Appeal, that, taking this Section alone, it clearly points to the case of an individual and means that the loss in his business which a person is to be entitled to set off against the Excess Profits Duty payable by him is a loss personal to himself.
I put it to the Solicitor-General that the words "substantial identity of interest" must not be taken to mean only where one man retains 80 per cent. of the old business. If there are four partners in a. firm which paid Excess Profits Duty, and they form a limited company and take shares in the correct proportions, there is substantial identity of interest; they are the persons who paid the Excess Profits Duty, and they are the persons who have the right to get it back. The judgment of Lord Cave brings that out—there is "the personal note," as he says, that personal note which was absent from another Statute.
To try and ride off in that very narrow, unjust, and inequitable way by that narrow construction is doing an injustice to a number of firms. It is bringing them to the ground, and making them pay a share of taxation which other people ought to share with them. It is causing a very considerable amount of distress and fear, and the consequences and effect of it must he that where businesses are closed down, not merely are the proprietors sent to another method of earning their living, but work-people are thrown into the streets.

6.0 p.m.

Major BARNETT: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so because I, with others, have Amendments on the Paper aiming at the same thing, which is an Amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the principal Act, and deals with the substantial identity of interest between the new owner and the old. I must not, however, be taken to be associating myself with the exact wording of the Amendment on the Paper. The words of the Amendment are:
Substantial identity of interest by reason of persons beneficially interested in the old owner being beneficially interested in the new owner.
If those words be placed upon the Statute Book they will simply constitute an anomaly. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) seems to me to be the first Amendment on this subject which has passed through the hands of a lawyer. The words he uses are:
identity of interest by reason of any person, or persons, beneficially interested in the original ownership being beneficially interested in the new ownership.
I think that makes the point clearer. After all, this is a drafting matter, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the principle of this Amendment. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) has missed the principal argument in favour of his own Amendment, which is the very existence in the Bill of Clause 26. The Government comes forward with a Finance Bill containing a Clause which makes a far wider extension of the original privilege given by the principal Act than is contained in any of these Amendments. The Clause lays down that where there is devolution of ownership, without any identity of ownership, the new owner shall in certain cases be put into the same position as the original owner. In other words, this means that as long as the devolution is on the usual lines of husband to wife, wife to husband, father to son or daughter, grandfather to grandson or granddaughter, so long as the devolution is in accord with that principle of legitimate expectation which Jeremy Bentham terms the basis of security, the new owner shall be recognised as having the rights of the old owner.
We are now asking for something very much less than that, for the Clause deals with cases where there is no identity of ownership at all. No one quarrels with Clause 26, but if we put that Clause on the Statute Book how can we refuse the Amendment? An answer has been quoted from by the Mover of this Amendment which was given in this House on the 20th February last dealing with administrative action in these cases. I protest most strongly against
the idea of correcting these hardships by administrative action, because such action in matters of taxation is only a temporary makeshift at the best, and it is always bad. The words are so important in the answer which has been quoted by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire that I will venture to repeat them:
The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have been instructed to deal administratively with cases of the character to which the hon. Member refers. The cases corning within their purview are numerous and present widely divergent features, and no detailed instructions could be framed to cover the various circumstances arising.
My submission is that it is for the House of Commons to decide the principles upon which people are to be taxed, and it is not for us to leave it to administrative action. I trust my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept this Amendment, but if he is not able to do so, I hope at least he will be able to assure us that the administrative method of dealing with taxation will be strictly limited.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I would like to give my support to this Amendment, because I have one on the Paper very much of the same nature. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify the operation of this Clause on lines of justice, reason or honesty? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said something about legal decisions and common sense, or something of that kind, but here is a case where the Treasury talk about adopting administrative action in order to deal with certain hard cases. To me this proposal looks very much like repayment dodging. If you wish the taxpayer to deal out equity to you then you must deal out equity to the taxpayer.

Sir L. SCOTT: On this subject which is one of very great importance, the Committee will, of course, naturally expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the main question. I wish to disarm hostility at the outset by saying that I am not going to attempt to deal with the main question, but I will put before the Committee certain preliminary considerations which I submit are of the utmost importance to a proper appreciation of the question which the Committee has to decide. With the aphorism of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Major Barnett) that administrative action in matters of taxation should not include a discretion to tax or
not to tax, I for one am in profound agreement as a general principle. The reason why administrative action in certain cases exercises a discretion as to whether a given case comes within the tax or not, is because it is one of practical difficulty, and that is the only justification for administrative action. In certain cases it is a fact that it is so extraordinarily difficult by general language such as must be used in an Act of Parliament to cover the variety of cases which arise that sometimes resort must be had of necessity to minor degrees of discretion in administrative action in order to prevent hardships in individual cases which cannot have been intended by the spirit of the taxing Act.
Subject to these general remarks, I agree and accept the challenge on behalf of the Government that the question which has to be decided to-day is a legislative question. We have to decide whether or not the proposal contained in Clause 26 of this Bill is a right or a wrong proposal, and if it is wrong, we have to decide how it should be altered. I accept that proposition, and it is from the point of view of endeavouring to help the Committee in this matter that I want to deal with a certain aspect of the case which seems not to have received quite sufficient attention in the speeches which have been made to-day, and in the various discussions which have taken place on this subject in the past. The speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, if I may say so, was like all his speeches, extraordinarily clear and lucid.
I wish to point out, however, that the aspect of the case, with which I want to deal, was not faced by the hon. Member. The fundamental error made by the hon. Member is that he treated the Excess Profits Duty as a tax on the businesses, instead of being similar in character to the Income Tax, the Super-tax, and other taxes payable by the individual person. He said, practically, that whereas the duty by the Act is levied upon businesses, and whereas those who are liable to the duty are the owners of trades and businesses, under Sub-section (3) of the Section in question an individual is entitled to repayment if he makes a loss and asks for a recoupment out of the tax paid in a previous accounting period. The reason why that is important is,
that this question of identity, of continuing identity, is really at the bottom of the views of most of those who feel that there is a moral force in the claim for a wide extension of the law as it is to-day, in order to give recoupment under Sub-section (3) to a great many persons and companies who do not at present by the law get it. If the subject of taxation had been intended by Parliament to be the business, then continuity of the business would, ex hypothesi, also come under the same provision. According to the assumption of the Mover of the Amendment, that was the basis of the legislation the continuous business, and that would seem to carry a right to repayment where, having made a profit in one accounting period, it made a loss in another accounting period, even though the ownership of the business may have been more or less changed.
That is not the point of view from which Parliament imposed this duty. Parliament imposed it as a personal tax, and that is the whole point of the decision in the Gittus case. No one is more sensible than a lawyer—and no one is less inclined to boast than a lawyer—of the disinclination of this House to be lectured on legal questions, but I hope the Committee will listen to me for a few moments while I submit what I think is the true view of this case. The point I want to make clear to the Committee is that this legislation as to Excess Profits Duty is based on the taxation of the person with certain necessary limitations when you come to work it out, and we have worked it out in this country to be for a period of seven years. That is the question the Committee has really to decide. An hon. Member has suggested, by way of interjection, that it is a question of honesty and of moral obligation, but those are questions which one cannot decide until it is known what Parliament intended to do by this particular legislation. It is only when one appreciates the character of the tax that you get the real object of the Section. A question which, I agree, is of great importance is the question of what is right and what is wrong. The hon. Member said that that was the whole issue. It is not the whole issue. Necessarily these questions of taxation involve a degree of right or wrong. You cannot help hardships in individual cases, but in considering the moral obligation you have to consider the
question of what you can afford. You can conceivably have a case where the moral claim to the remission of taxation which was well founded would yet result in such a cost to the Exchequer that it could not simply be made. These questions are necessarily questions of degree, and assuming they are questions of degree, you get to the point that where it is right a thing should be done, it has to be done at whatever cost. We have not been through the Great War without learning that lesson.
I want to say a few words on the purely legal question as to what Parliament intended by this legislation as expressed in the Act itself. In the Section which imposes the duty, Section 38 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, it is provided that:
There shall be charged, levied, and paid on the amount by which the profits arising from any trade or business to which this part of this Act applies in any accounting period…exceeding by more than £200 the pre-War standard of profits as defined for the purposes of this part of this Act a duty…of an amount equal to 50 per cent, of that excess.
And then Sub-section (3) says:
Where a person proves that in any accounting period after the fourth day of August, 1914, his profits have not reached the point which involves liability to Excess Profits Duty or that he has sustained a loss in his trade or business, he shall lie entitled to repayment of such amount. paid by him as Excess Profits Duty in respect of any previous accounting period, or to set off against any Excess Profits Duty payable by him in respect of any succeeding accounting period such an amount as will make the total amount of Excess Profits Duty paid by him during the whole period accord with his profits or losses during that period.
Those of us who were in that Parliament remember the Debates that took place on this Averaging Clause. The point that was made was that if a man made a profit in one accounting period and lost in the next it was fair to him that he should be able to set off one against the other. There is nothing in the Statute which goes back upon or modifies that fundamental position as contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 38. On the contrary all the other provisos bear out that view because it is laid down that the calculation of profits shall be made in the same manner as the calculation of Income Tax profits, and Income Tax methods, and the Income Tax point of view runs through the whole Schedule and the whole of the provisions of the Act. Throughout it is treated as
a sort of Income Tax. I need not trouble the Committee with details. There is only a single case where there is a reference to change of ownership of the business—and that is for a purely subsidiary purpose, namely, for the purpose of calculating the profits of the accounting period for which the duty is to be paid. What the House of Lords pointed out in the Gittus case was that that was a subsidiary purpose with the object of getting at the pre-War standard, but that the basis of the legislation all through was that the individual must make the payment.

Mr. HOLMES: With regard to the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put on Sub-section (3) of Section 38, that it is the man who paid the Excess Profits Duty and that no one else has a right to claim repayment, will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the position in a case where, say, four partners in a private firm turn it into a private company each with a quarter share in the company? Are they not, in making a claim for repayment, asking for the return of the Excess Profits Duty which they themselves have paid?

Sir L. SCOTT: I paid such close attention to the hon. Member that I quite understood the point he made, and I shall deal with it; but by his permission I think it would be more convenient to take it in what seems to be its logical place rather than at this moment. Perhaps he will forgive me if I postpone my reply to him on that point till later. I want to read a few of the remarks of Lord Sterndale, the Master of the Rolls, who presided over the Court of Appeal in the Gittus case—a man of extraordinarily sound judgment and with a great knowledge of business. He pointed out that the issue in the case was whether there was a continuing identity in a- business which had been owned by the father and which by him was left to the son who, before the father's death, had had no part in the business. It was claimed that the tax was payable out of the business and was a tax on the business, and that therefore a claim for repayment attached because of the continuing identity of the business. After quoting Sub-section (3), which I have read to the Committee, Lord Sterndale in the course of his judgment said:
In order to make that argument good you would have to alter the language of
Sub-section (3) as enacted by Parliament and introduce into it a number of words that were not there, referring in each case to the owner of the business for the time being, instead of, as the Section does, simply to him and his business. You would then find that you would have to read the Sub-section thus: 'The person carrying on the business for the time being shall be entitled to repayment of such an amount paid by the person carrying on the business for the time being, whether himself or another person, as Excess Profits Duty in respect of any previous accounting period, or to set off against any Excess Profits Duty payable by the person carrying on the business for the time being in respect of any succeeding accounting period such an amount as shall make the total amount of Excess Profits Duty paid by the person for the time being carrying on the business, whether the same person as before-mentioned or not, accord with his profits or losses during that period.'
Lord Sterndale remarked that these words were not in the Act, and they seemed to him to be entirely foreign to the idea of the Act. The repayment was intended by Parliament to be given to the man who had paid the tax and because he had paid it. It follows from that, that where the business passes to somebody else, whether by sale or by assignment at law, the person who succeeds to the business may find he has made a bad purchase, or he may find he has succeeded to an unprofitable concern, but Parliament took the view that the tax had to be paid and that that kind of hardship was not to be taken into account. I venture to submit that that is the first fundamental principle. It is essential to realise in regard to this scheme of taxation that it was not intended by Parliament to give to the successor in a business any right to recover payment. I am expressing no opinion whether that is right or wrong I am dealing with what was the scheme of Parliament when the legislation was passed. Let us consider the result of the scheme introduced by Parliament—a result not from a legal point of view, but from a moral point of view. It is create undoubtedly a great anomaly, to cause greater disadvantages to the Exchequer, and to confer great advantages on individuals themselves who have never paid any Excess Profits Duty. In law a limited liability company, registered under the Companies Act, is a legal person. The result of the framework of that legislation is that where a
legal person continues from one accounting period to the other a company is just as much entitled to repayment as if the company had been a natural person. What is the moral aspect of that? The moral aspect of it may be, as has been already said, that the shareholders' list may be completely changed at the end of one accounting period, and there may be an entirely new list of shareholders at the commencement of the next accounting period; and, if that business in the next accounting period makes a loss, then, under this legislation, the Exchequer has to pay back what has been previously paid in Excess Profits Duty. Why? There is no moral justice in it. You do not have these moral questions existing in cases of taxation nearly so much as has been generally supposed. I now come at once to the case which has been put by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. We all agree that in that particular case, where, say, four persons pay Excess Profits Duty in one accounting period, at the end of which they turn themselves into a limited liability company, keeping each the same share in the concern and taking in no new person, it seems to be a hardship on moral grounds that they could not be entitled to recover. Why? Because you are concerned with persons. But is the Exchequer to be hit both ways? Is it to be "Heads I lose, tails you win?" You must face this inevitable result of all taxation, that there are cases which fall on each side of the line. Some are hard on the Exchequer, some are hard on the individual, and sufficient allowance has not been made for the legal necessity that follows from all taxing Statutes.

Lord R. CECIL: May I interrupt for just a moment? I only want to follow the argument of my hon. and learned Friend. Why is not this case covered by the Clause as it stands, it being a voluntary disposition?

Sir L. SCOTT: Because the company, which is the person who owns the business, is not the husband or the wife of the previous owner. I hope my Noble Friend will not think I am being facetious at his expense, because it is not very clear. Approaching the matter, not from the legal, but from the moral point of view, which even the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to do if he can—

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Good faith is the essence of statesmanship.

Sir L. SCOTT: Even the Solicitor-General agrees with that. Approaching the question, so far as possible, from the point of view of the moral plane, I would ask the Committee one question: What is the hardest case of all? Is it not just the Gittus case, where the father has paid large sums in Excess Profits Duty, hands over his business, whether as a gift or upon his death, to his son, and, in the next accounting period there is a great loss and the son cannot get back one penny?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is very hard.

Sir L. SCOTT: I am glad to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member. That case has been met by this Clause, and in addition we include a grandfather as well as a husband or a wife. We all feel that those are the hardest cases, and the ones which ought to come first on the list if we are to meet any of them. We have met those cases; but I say it is quite illogical, as, I think, the hon. Member who moved the. Amendment remarked, that we should have done so. He says the Clause is founded on no principle, that it is illogical. I agree. It is not founded on any taxing principle; it does not follow by any logical relevance from any provision whatever in Excess Profits Duty legislation. For the purpose of dealing humanly by administrative action with such cases, we have attempted to put into the Statute the cases which we think are those which are most clamant for treatment—and at what price? At the price of some three millions sterling. Do let us face these taxing questions as taxing questions. There is no rhyme or reason for the extensions that have been asked for based upon any provision in the original legislation. It was an artificial tax, arbitrary, capricious, in many ways bad. It has gone, but it has left a heritage of trouble behind it. Can the Exchequer afford, because the tax was an unfortunate one in some of its effects, to pay a number of claims, because, from a certain point of view, as I am sure the Chancellor will be the first to admit, some of these claims—not all by any means, but some of them—are claims which he would like to meet if he could.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I do not propose to follow the Solicitor-General in the legal argument which he has just put before the Committee. It seemed to me that the greater part of that argument was directed against the Government's own Clause. Be that as it may, I rise simply to follow the example of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes), and to give to the Committee a definite, concrete case, which I believe will satisfy them that some Amendment on the lines of that which has just been proposed is absolutely necessary. The Committee will notice that the Clause covers a disposition from a. father to a son. I have a concrete case of a private company in which a father and son were shareholders. The son was killed, and his share devolved to his father. Under the Government's Clause, the company is not entitled to make a claim for repayment of Excess Profits Duty in respect of the son's share. I venture to think that that is a very hard case, and that, whatever the Government may do with this Amendment, which is of a more general character, they ought., at any rate, to extend this Clause to cover a disposition, not merely from a. father to a son, but from a son to a. father. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the actual facts, which I have in my possession here, and I very much hope that he will be able to make this small and very reasonable concession, even though he may find that, for financial reasons, he cannot accept an. Amendment of general scope. The case is a very hard one, and is a very genuine case. The son was killed in the War, and the father is unable to claim the repayment to which he would otherwise be entitled. I venture to make this appeal on that concrete case to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: The case which the last speaker has mentioned is just an example, not only of the difficulty of dealing with this kind of case, but also of the possibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing something at any rate to meet it. Everyone will agree that the case of the succession of a father to the share of his son is as strong as that of a son succeeding to his father. In fact, the Solicitor-General, only a minute or two ago, stated, apparently in error, that the Government's Clause did cover the
succession of an ancestor as well as of a descendant. I only hope it may be the case that he was merely intelligently anticipating what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was intending to do, namely, to make that slight concession. The Solicitor-General referred to the Gittus case, which was a case of the succession of a son to a father, as being the hardest one that could be imagined, and the one that it was most necessary to relieve. I am not quite so sure about that. I think that, perhaps, a harder case still is that of the man himself who succeeds to his own business and cannot get relief. May I put this case? The owner of a business, or it may be a partnership form of three or four individuals, find themselves in the difficulty in which so many firms found themselves at the end of the War. They are absolutely unable, without further funds, to purchase the necessary stock or plant for carrying on their business. They have not the money, and they have practically very little security upon which they can borrow it, owing to their liability for Excess Profits Duty. What is that firm to do if it can? The first thing that occurs to one's mind is that it must borrow that money, and many of them, those who were able to do so, did. Many of the oldest and most substantial firms in this country borrowed money at 8 or even 10 per cent. But suppose that they say they cannot get anyone to lend them money, even at 10 per cent., because their security is not good, what can they do? They look about and find a man who has not only money, but youth, ability and the power to work, who wants a chance to become a partner in a business, and they take that man into their business as a partner instead of borrowing the money from him. Is that a change in the ownership of the business which is to disqualify the original partners in the firm from recovering the Excess Profits Duty?
Let me go one step further. An individual or a set of individuals in partnership are in the position which I have described, and they have to get further money which they cannot borrow. The only way in which they can get it is by getting a number of people to come in as sleeping partners, or, in other words, to turn their business into a limited liability company, and get these other people to take shares in it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
Solicitor-General both, I have no doubt, know the case that I have in mind. It happened a very short time ago. The partners in that case formed their business into a limited liability company and let in other persons as equal shareholders with themselves. They took their purchase money entirely in shares. They did not take one penny of cash, and, in fact, bound themselves not to part with those shares, putting it out of their power, therefore, to take cash. There is no clearer case in this world of a man who himself has made a loss in a business in which he himself has made the profits which made him liable to pay the Excess Profits Duty, and if the Chancellor of the. Exchequer cannot go so far as the Amendment would go, there are cases of this kind where there is personal identity of interest, even if it may be only in a part of the business instead of the whole, where you can trace that actual personal identity in which that man should not be debarred from getting back his share by reason of the fact that he has been obliged to part with part of his business owing to the stress of the times and the difficulties in which he finds himself.
Dealing administratively with hard cases may be justified as a temporary measure till the time when you are able to legislate for them, and if the Government has been able to deal with certain cases administratively in the past that: s one very strong reason why they should deal legislatively with the question now, and it is not an answer to their argument that owing to the complexity and the glaring number of cases which have to be dealt with, it cannot be dealt with satisfactorily by this Bill. I say it can. You have only to get a certain form of words, which will carry you some way at any rate, and if the Chancellor will not go the whole way we want him to, let him go a little way. Then he can still reserve to the Government the power of dealing administratively with cases which are on the border line, or to put it more easily for him still, give himself by legislation the definite power to deal administratively with cases which come within a certain limit and the Inland Revenue can be left perhaps a discretion to deal according to the circumstances of the case with any deserving case as long as it comes within the limit.
I quite appreciate the Solicitor-General's point that where a company is
still the owner of a business the shareholders in that company may have changed, but surely the answer to that is something like this. Where a company can get back this benefit, notwithstanding the fact that the beneficial owner has changed by reason of the shares changing hands, that is a case in which the Chancellor has left a hole in his tax-collecting net, and because he has allowed some people to get a benefit which they are entitled to legally, but not in equity or according to the higher standards of morality, it is not for him to say, "I will stop other people who are most thoroughly entitled to get this money back from getting it back. I cannot afford to let them have what they ought to have because I have allowed someone else to have it." I suggest that something should be done on the lines of this Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will hold out some hope that on the Report stage we may have some slight modification of Clause 26 so as to cover the case of the individual who remains the owner, and is practically bound to remain the owner of the business, notwithstanding the fact that he has been driven by stress of circumstances to share it with someone else either in a partnership or, through necessity sometimes, turning that partnership into a private limited liability company.

Lord R. CECIL: I could not vote for the Amendment as it stands, because it seems to me, whatever view you take of this, that it goes a great deal too far. As I understand it, even if a man had sold the business completely, provided there is an identity of interest between the purchaser and the vendor, the purchaser would be entitled to come upon the Exchequer for repayment of the Excess Profits Duty paid by his vendor. I cannot think that that is just.

Mr. HOLMES: The Amendment says nothing of the sort.

Lord R. CECIL: Does it not? I think it does—
and in any other case where there has been a change in ownership of a business, repayment of or set off against Excess Profits Duty shall be made to the new owner in a similar manner, if there is, and to the extent to which there is, substantial identity of interest by reason of persons beneficially interested in the old owner being beneficially interested in the new owner.

Mr. HOLMES: That means that if A had 25 per cent. of the old business and continues to have 25 per cent. of the new business and there is no one else who has an interest in the old and the new business, A himself will have the right to get back 25 per cent. of the total which the new company would have the right to get back from the Inland Revenue, and the other 75 per cent. would not be recovered by the other owners.

Lord R. CECIL: As the thing stands, I think it goes a great deal further than that. So I read it. I do not know whether that is the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it appears to me to go a great deal further than that.

Mr. HERBERT: It is a question of drafting.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it only the case of the owner continuing in the business in fact that is dealt with by the Amendment? I do not so understand it. If that be so, you must have entirely different drafting. Is not the real conclusion of this that the moment you try to meet hard cases under the Excess Profits Duty, you are launched on an absolutely endless quest? You cannot meet all the hard cases that arise, and the real question is where you are to draw the line. Wherever you draw the line, there will be some cases on the other side which will be hard cases.

Mr. HERBERT: We are not asking really for relief for hard cases. We are asking for what we consider to be the truly equitable and right interpretation of the old Act, which says that where an individual has made profits in a business on which he has paid and has afterwards made losses he may reclaim those losses We ask the Government to say that that person who has made a loss in a business represented by 100 per cent., and who has lost 50 per cent. of that business, may be able to get back in respect of what he has lost on the 50 per cent. of the business which he has retained. We keep entirely to the person. We say that if that person instead of being a partner in a firm is shareholder in a limited liability company who has not parted with his shares he is still the person who has made the profit, paid the tax, sustained the losses and should get the repayment.

Lord R. CECIL: I quite realise, indeed it was because of the hon. Member's speech that I realised, the great hardship of the case that he puts. I think it will be quite easy—I am sure my hon. Friend can do it with great ease—to extend that and to show other hard cases a little further on and so on.

Mr. HERBERT: Outside the Act we have been discussing.

Lord R. CECIL: I am not sure that he is right in saying they come outside. I am not against any remission of taxation which is called for by justice, but it appears to me that this Amendment, as drafted, goes a great deal too far, and I could not possibly vote for it as it stands, and if there is a Division I shall vote for the Government.

Mr. G. TERRELL: I have been asked by an organisation which is representative of a very large number of smaller manufacturers, who are the persons very largely interested in the recovery of this tax, to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some wide and generous concession. The point he has to remember is that this tax was hasty War legislation. I remember when it was passed through the House, I think in an Autumn Session. It was rushed through with very little consideration of the Clauses. There was no opposition or criticism at all from the point of view of the people who would be ultimately liable to pay the tax. It was just that the money had to be raised, and there was no grousing on the part of the manufacturing interests as to what they would have to pay. They paid willingly. They were only too glad to give their profits and to give everything to help to win the War. [Interruption.] Of course, there was a great distinction between their attitude and that of the Labour party, who incited strikes and harassed the Government in every possible way and who were profiteers. So far as the taxpayers were concerned, they were only too glad to do what they possibly could to find the money for the purposes of the War.

Mr. ROSE: And now you want it back.

Mr. TERRELL: Now our case is that this is a very great hardship, and it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to look at all these things from the point of view of whether or not the demands which the Treasury are making are or
are not honest. We do not want to deal with this matter now from the strictly legal standpoint. You want the principle of give and take. Is it right and is it fair? I think my right hon. Friend will be well advised if he makes some concession in the direction of meeting this Amendment. There is a feeling in the mind of a very great number of taxpayers that they have been harshly used by the Treasury, which is taking a far too technical view. Instead of taking a broad view, it is making demands from a purely technical point of view. The cases which have been stated to-day show that there is a very great measure of justice in this claim which has not been met by the purely legal argument which has been addressed to the Committee by the Solicitor-General. I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot see his way to meet it at this moment to reserve this question till the Report stage and see if he cannot find some words which will to some extent meet these great cases of hardship.

7.0 p.m.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way, if he cannot accept the actual wording of the Amendment, at any rate to substitute something which will give more or less the same effect. I think the Mover of the Amendment put his case so ably and clearly that there is very little left for anyone else to say, but I have been particularly asked to bring what seems to me an extraordinarily hard case to the notice of the Committee. The case I have in mind is that of an amalgamation prior to 1920. Three firms which were separate, individual entities; during the years prior to 1920 they made large profits, and between them they paid something from £400,000 to £500,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1920 they amalgamated. Since then, as every-one knows, times have been extremely bad and much money has been lost. It was a perfectly genuine amalgamation; these firms did not go out of existence with the idea of avoiding the Income Tax or anything of that kind. This is not only a case of substantial identity of interest, but they are, to all intents and purposes, the same identical firms. Yet the fact remains that on account of the amalgamation they are not entitled to recover any of the excess profits they
have paid, and they are not entitled to any repayment or set-off on excess profits. If they had not amalgamated these three separate, individual firms would have been entitled to that set-off; but owing to the amalgamation and to what, to me, is the most extraordinary state of the law, they are apparently not entitled to recover anything. I am no lawyer. I am perfectly well aware of the fundamental fallacies with which every layman approaches all these legal technicalities. What the taxpayers of the country want, however, are not legal quibbles, but common elementary justice, and nothing will convince them that it is fair or just that three firms, who would have been entitled to recover or to have a set-off in regard to this tax, should, by the mere fact of amalgamation, lose that right. Therefore I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to do something to put right what seems to me to be an extraordinary anomaly in the ordinary tax-paying law.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I should like to add my voice to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General again to consider carefully whether, when the conduct of a business remains in the hands of the vendor and when the personnel is in no way changed, such a case cannot be dealt with on the basis of no change of ownership. I thoroughly appreciate the action of the Government in meeting the case of the one man, but is it fair to single out one man and to say, "We are going to give you this benefit," and then to take two or three men, or more, and say, "In your case we will continue the injustice which we confess exists in the case of the one man." I hope the Government, as they have admitted the injustice in the case of the one man and have met it under this Clause 26, will now carry the matter through and meet the injustice in the case of all those who come under the category in which the business and the personnel remain the same. As a chartered accountant I have many cases of this description and I trust that this injustice will be remedied. We all know the case in the Bible where, for the sake of 10 just men, it was promised that two cities should be saved from destruction. In this case we have to appeal in a reverse way. It is not a question of 10 just men saving a city from destruction, but you have one just man whom you are saving
from destruction while there are two, three or more just men whom we ask you to save from penalties and from having their businesses destroyed. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the matter in this light, and will see that equity and justice demand that the principle which has been applied to the one man should be applied to all those who are in the same position, and who are suffering under the disability due to the non-return of the Excess Profits Duty.

Mr. FILDES: I should like to emphasise what has been said with regard to the particularly malicious working of this intolerable tax and the continuation of this very dreadful injustice even after the War has concluded. Like the rest of hon. Members, I could give instance after instance where men have had their businesses denuded of capital in order to meet the payments of the Excess Profits Duty. They have been compelled, having no other resources open to them, to turn their businesses into private limited companies. Thousands of pounds have been paid by them previously under this compulsory Act, yet they have been precluded from claiming repayment of the duty. One could not help admiring the courage of the Solicitor-General in his defence of this Clause when one remembered that he, himself, belongs to a profession that has made vast profits during the War and which carefully excluded itself from the operation of this tax. When, however, he says that the Excess Profits Duty is on all fours with the Income Tax, the thing is untrue and in every way incorrect. I will proceed to prove that. The basis of the Excess Profits Duty is that it selects a certain section of the community and penalises them, leaving the rest of the community free from this special taxation. I invite the attention of hon. Members on the Labour Benches to the fact that half the land of this country changed hands at very huge profits during the War. Have the vendors been called upon to pay Excess Profits Duty?

Mr. ROSE: No.

Mr. FILDES: No. Yet the Solicitor-General says that this tax is something which, in common with the Income Tax, applies to the whole of the community. I say that the Excess Profits Duty, as a whole, is a wrong tax. It is a tax that
inflicts hardship on one special section of the community to the exclusion of the rest. I support most strongly the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes). It is pitiable to think that you are taking £80 and £90 out of each £100 from the profits of a man who, in pre-War days, was doing badly.

Mr. ROSE: Excess profits.

Mr. FILDES: The hon. Member says "excess profits." Supposing, however, that a man was making nothing before the War. Perhaps he missed the market through some circumstance over which he had no control. He had a bad time. With this tax and Super-tax you take from him £90 out of each £100. Then, when he hopes to carry on after the War, the slump comes—take the case of cotton, where you had twist at 70d. a lb. and which dropped to 17d. He has to face that loss and the slump. The only chance he has of saving himself from bankruptcy is to go to the Government and ask them to hand back to him some of the profits which he paid them previously. If he has been compelled to change the ownership of his business in the slightest degree, and to call in someone else to give him financial aid, he is precluded definitely and for all time from getting that assistance which his more worthy competitor is able to receive purely and simply from the fact that the wealthier man has not had to call in outside assistance. I feel very strongly that that is not a position the House of Commons ever contemplated would arise when this legislation was passed, and I hope hon. Members will recognise that this Amendment simply offers an opportunity to remedy something that in previous Sessions was done wrongly, and which would not have been done had Members been fully acquainted with the way in which the thing was going to work out. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I shall support the Amendment.

Mr. ROSE: After the very improving lessons we have had, and after the exhibition we have been given of the humorous and interesting capitalistic virtues, I am rather sorry to introduce anything like an element of discord into the harmony of the proceedings. I want, however, to call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to concede one single inch
or one single copper. I hope on this occasion he will remember something more than this present Budget, and recall what happened during the War. The only objection I ever had to the Excess Profits Duty was that it was not cent. per cent., and that it never went up above 80 per cent. What anybody wanted with excess profits I cannot imagine, nor can I imagine what title anybody could have to excess profits at a time when the nation was in such awful peril. This is another illustration of the nobility of private enterprise. You will adways notice that as soon as these private enterprisers get into a tight place they come snivelling to the Government, either for a subsidy, or for some remission of their natural and proper obligations to the State of which they are citizens. I do not think there is anything more deplorable—I am almost ready to say more depraved—than the attitude of some of these people who pretend that they are concerned with the interests of the small struggling traders and manufacturers. They are asking one for the small traders and two for themselves all the time and every time. It seems to me that under existing conditions, whether or not we agree with the method of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we must all concede that he has to get the revenue. We know that he has to balance the national accounts somehow, and if he is going to listen to every importunate for release from natural and proper obligations, I do not know where he will be. I suggest that he should stick tight in this particular case and give no concession whatever.

Sir R. HORNE: I have listened to the discussion with very deep interest, and with a not unnatural anxiety to discover whether there was any method by which individual hard cases, to which reference has been made, could be alleviated. This problem has been continuously before me ever since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) has stated, the question was raised on the Finance Bill of last year, and at that time I gave certain indications of my desire to find a remedy in cases which, obviously, were hard. I also indicated that if such a method was discoverable I should be very glad to give it my most earnest consideration, but everything which has happened during the discussion this afternoon
has made it clear to me that the problem is just as difficult to-day as I found it when I discussed it a year ago. The real fact is that when you cone to define the class of cases in which relief ought to be given, you find yourself in an absolutely impossible position. Nobody has really indicated where we can draw a line upon which what is supposed to be justice in this matter has to be done—if we look at the views on justice and equality put forward by hon. Members—rather than the rights which are given by Statute.
We find difficulties disclosed in the Amendments on the Paper. One of the Amendments talks about "substantial identity" of personality in the old firm and in the new. This is a phrase which is adopted from an answer to a question given by the Financial Secretary. It is a phrase which may be broad and may give a rough meaning, but it is a totally different thing when you come to put it into an Act of Parliament. I am certain that there is no possibility of construing "substantial identity" when you come down to actual practice. I have some difficulty, as had my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), in understanding the first Amendment moved by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, where he speaks about
substantial identity of interest by reason of persons beneficially interested in the old owner being beneficially interested in the new owner.
That seems to indicate a continuance of the personality of the old owner, although the business has passed entirely from him. I find it very difficult to arrive at any clear idea as to what is contained in these words, and I am not surprised, for the reason that I have found it just as difficult in every attempt I have made to frame any form of words which would at once give a remedy to some of the types of harsh cases which have been mentioned this afternoon, and deny a similar remedy to the people who in justice do not deserve it. The second Amendment obviously foresees a difficulty in defining "substantial identity," and tries to work the matter out as a mere question of proportion. However small an interest a man may have in a business, if he passes on from that business to another business he is supposed by the
second Amendment to carry with him his right to get back any losses that he suffers, as against the Excess Profits Duty which he has paid. Obviously that is carrying the matter far beyond the limits of reason, and I find myself in precisely the same position as the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, when he said that he recognised great hardship was involved in certain cases, but, on the other hand, he also saw that any attempt to legislate on the line which the Amendments disclosed would result in claims upon the State which would be perfectly unjustifiable.
When I say that, I do not attempt to conceal my own view that the legislation in regard to Excess Profits Duty has had results, in certain cases, of great hardship. I am afraid that that is the tendency of fixing legislation every time. There always will be some cases on one side of the line which seem to be harshly treated, wherever you draw the line, and in the present instance I think it is more difficult to draw the line than in any case I have known. The position which was stated by the Solicitor-General was that Parliament enacted that there should be certain privileges to persons who had paid Excess Profits Duty if at a certain period they suffered loss in the same business, but, as he explained, those benefits were conferred purely upon persons. Whether that is right or wrong, that is the enactment, and it has to be construed by the Courts. We have endeavoured by the Clause I have put forward to meet the harshness of certain cases. The case of a son succeeding a father in business and finding himself confronted with great losses, and deprived of the opportunity of claiming Excess Profits Duty paid while the business was in his father's control, is a case which, if you are to deal with the matter at all, we might appropriately treat. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) mentioned a similar case, where a father succeeds a son in a business, where father and son were in partnership, and the father succeeds to the son's share by reason of his death. That is a case which comes precisely within the narrow category with which we have set ourselves to deal, and, so far as that is concerned, I am prepared to put in words which will bring that case within the
bounds of the Clause. I must warn the Committee that even what seems a very restricted concession in this matter involves the Exchequer in a loss of £3,000,000.

Mr. HOLMES: Surely not the last concession.

Sir R. HORNE: No, the concession in the Clause. The last concession extends that loss slightly, but not to a very large amount. The concession in the Clause will cost the Exchequer £3,000,000. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Government at the present time is trying to get payment of Excess Profits Duty, and is finding very great difficulty in getting it, even by instalments. We are extending, by a Clause which has been passed this afternoon, the period within which instalments of Excess Profits Duty may be paid, to five years. Some hon. Members do not consider that period long enough, and it is possible that a longer extension may have to be given. While, on the one hand, the Exchequer are unable at the present time to collect the Excess Profits Duty which is due to them, nevertheless, the obligation to pay in respect of loss is immediate. Therefore, we are in the position of not being able to collect all that is owing to us, and, at the same time being compelled to pay what we owe. To extend that obligation means the creation of a very difficult situation for the Exchequer this year. If we were to give the concessions which are involved in these Amendments it would cost us, in addition to the £3,000,000 I have already mentioned, at least another £10,000,000. Whatever one may have desired to do under more advantageous circumstances, it is perfectly plain that the giving of concessions of that kind at this time would be to wreck the whole of the present Budget. We should have to start to reconstruct it, and, in the face of the circumstances, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. D. HERBERT: If we can find the right hon. Gentleman a line of demarcation to bring in one or two very hard cases, and also bring it to him with a proposition that a certain percentage
should be paid in those cases, and that the repayment may be over a number of years, would he consider something on those lines?

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be very glad to consider any proposition of that kind which my hon. Friend puts before me, but I have some little doubt as to whether it will be possible to frame a practicable line of demarcation such as he suggests.

Sir CHARLES SYKES: The impression made upon my mind by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that the Exchequer have changed their minds very considerably since February. It almost appears to me that because times are bad and the -Exchequer are very hard up they are going to decline to repay Excess Profits Duty to those firms who are entitled to them. May I give the Committee a very glaring example, without mentioning names There is a firm in the North of England who, during the War, did a tremendous lot of work, and they had to extend their premises to a degree that they would never have contemplated during peace time. They had money advanced to them by the hank, and they paid Excess Profits Duty. Owing to the condition of the market and to the decision of the bank it was necessary that they should appeal to the public for preference shares. The constitution of the firm was not altered, except that the preference shares took the place of the bank. The identity of the firm was practically the same as it was before. Now it seems to me that because times are hard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking refuge behind the hard times, and I do not think that he is treating these firms properly. Unless something it done to protect these firms they will be in bankruptcy, and good businesses, which men have spent their lives in building up, will be ruined. This particular firm employs about 1,200 men. These are cases to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give special consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 284.

Division No. 167.]
AYES
[7.31 p.m.


Armitage, Robert
Gould, James C
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W. D'by)
Randles, Sir John Scurrab


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, J. R.


Barrand, A. R.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Remnant, Sir James


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hinds, John
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hogge, James Myles
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Blgiand, Alfred
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Stanton, Charles Butt


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hurd, Percy A.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Windsor, Viscount


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macqulsten, F. A.



Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fildes, Henry
Nall, Major Joseph
Colonel Lambert Ward and Major


Foot, Isaac
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Entwistle.


Ganzoni, Sir John






NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Edgar, Clifford B.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Edge, Captain Sir William
Irving, Dan


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Ednam, Viscount
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Johnstone, Joseph


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Evans, Ernest
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Barlow, Sir Montague
Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbais)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Kennedy, Thomas


Barnston, Major Harry
Finney, Samuel
Kidd, James


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Belialrs, Commander Canyon W.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lawson, John James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Forestler-Walker. L.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Betterton, Henry B.
Forrest, Walter
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lindsay, William Arthur


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Galbraith, Samuel
Lloyd, George Butler


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lorden, John William


Brassey, H. L. C.
Gillis, William
Lort-Wililams, J.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lunn, William


Brlant, Frank
Goff, Sir R. Park
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Briggs, Harold
Graham, R. (Nelson and Coins)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachie)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Bromfield, William
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm


Bruton, Sir James
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grundy, T. W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Butcher, Sir John George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Magnus, Sir Philip


Cairns, John
Guest. J. (York. W. R., Hemsworth)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gulnness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hallwood, Augustine
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms


Casey, T. W.
Hallas, Eldred
Matthews, David


Cautley, Henry Strother
Halls, Walter
Middlebrook, Sir William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Haslam, Lewis
Mills, John Edmund


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Blrm.,W.)
Hayday, Arthur
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hayward, Evan
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Mosley, Oswald


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Henderson, Lt.-Col, V. L. (Tradeston)
Murchison, C. K.


Clough, Sir Robert
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hirst, G. H.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Myers, Thomas


Cope, Major William
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Neal, Arthur


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'W.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Daizlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Newton, Sir Percy Wilson


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Howard, Major S. G.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
O'Grady, Captain James




Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Wallace, J.


Parker, James
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Pearce, Sir William
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Seddon, J. A.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sexton, James
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Perring, William George
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Waterson, A. E.


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Pratt, John William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Purchase, H G.
Sitch, Charles H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Rattan, Peter Wilson
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Wignall, James


Ratcliffe Henry Butler
Spencer, George A.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Stewart, Gershom
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Rendall, Athelstan
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sturrock, J. Leng
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Sugden, W. H.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Wintringham, Margaret


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sutton, John Edward
Wise, Frederick


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Swan, J. E.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Robertson, John
Taylor, J.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Rodger, A. K.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Rose, Frank H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Rothschild, Lionel de
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Tickler, Thomas George
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Royce, William Stapleton
Tillett, Benjamin
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Townley, Maximilian G.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Tryon, Major George Clement



Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waddington, R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27 (Interpretation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Suspension of new Sinking Fund.)

In the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, that portion of the permanent charge for the National Debt, which is not required for the annual charge directed by the National Debt and Local Loans Act. 1887, or any other Act, to be paid out of that charge, shall not be paid.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Those of us who are in favour of sound finance would like to record our votes in the Division Lobby against the suspension of the Sinking Fund. This is no light matter. In the old days the financial stability of this country depended very largely upon the fact that, on the average, before the War, we paid £25,000,000 every year off debt. That gave strength to our financial position and made us the centre of finance for the world. This is the first year since the War that we have abandoned the old-fashioned plan of finance in favour of a habit that has been growing all over the Continent in recent years, which is having on the Continent most lamentable results. We are ceasing to
pay off debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by ceasing to pay off debt, finds himself in the happy position of being able to remit taxation. Next year he may find that he has to increase taxation again to make both ends meet. How much simpler it will be, not only to cease paying off debt, but to start accumulating debt. The very argument that has appealed successfully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of dropping the old-fashioned English habit of paying off debt may very well appeal to him next year to carry the process a little further.
We have only to look abroad to see how very attractive this new method of progression is to Chancellors of the Exchequer in other countries. In Germany, of course, no Chancellor of the Exchequer attempts to balance his Budget. What he cannot raise in taxation he can print with the printing press and carry on. The only result is that the mark sinks ever lower in value.
In France even, budgeting has not ha-come a question of balancing; the extraordinary expenditure is not met and the ordinary Budget is short of £80,000,000 of balancing. Before the War France was not remarkable for balancing the Budget. Instead of paying off debt the French merely increased debt, and now they are going over the same road, only more quickly. On the Continent they borrow
money, or print paper money if they cannot borrow. I do not say that we are on that road yet, but this is the first step, and it is the first step that counts, as far as conscience is concerned. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do this one year some other new Chancellor of the Exchequer will come along and say, "Well, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer showed me the road, and I will follow along that road. He was hailed as the saviour of his country because he ceased to pay off debt. I will be hailed as the second saviour, because I increased debt." Many of the arguments of the rich men to-night are arguments for the next Chancellor of the Exchequer not only to cease paying off debt, but to increase debt, and so to send up prices and decrease the value of the pound. It is a rosy path that the future Chancellor of the Exchequer can tread. He will be blessed by Lancashire. He will find that the first year he can borrow a little money and the second year a little more money, and then, like the Gadarene swine, he will run down the same precipice that Austria has run down, that Germany is running down, and that all other countries will run down sooner or later if they do not follow honest finance by paying their way. I wish we were paying our way in the old-fashioned way that was blessed by such patrons of sound finance as Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel, remembering that, after all is said and done, honesty is the best policy.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement, before he announced to the Committee his intention to repeal the Sinking Fund, reminded the House that the National Debt had been largely repaid during the last few years. On 1st May the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
The policy of the redemption of debt we have pursued with vigour and success." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1922; col. 1039, Vol. 153.]
Anyone reading those words would infer that during the last three years the National Debt has been largely reduced. What, however, are the facts? It has been clearly brought out since that date that the National Debt has been decreased by only £21,000,000. During that period the Government have sold national assets to the extent of £800,000,000. Every morning in the
columns of the "Times" one reads speeches delivered by the chairmen of different companies, and one reads on many occasions that the chairman of a company points out to the shareholders that mortgages have been reduced and financial liabilities reduced, and the chairman refers with pride to the progress made during the past twelve months. If the chairman of a public company, speaking at his annual meeting, told his shareholders that liabilities had been reduced, but did not point out that they had been reduced by the sale of capital assets, that particular chairman might not hold his office twelve months hence. That is my first charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On 1st May the right hon. Gentleman pointed out with truth that. he had provided "£322,000,000 in cash towards the redemption of debt during the last two years"; but side by side with that statement he did not make clear to the people that the position of the country to-day is very much worse than it was three years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot deny that statement. Three years ago we had £800,000,000 worth of assets. Those assets have been sold. It is true that debt has been reduced by £21,000.000 during the last three years. Therefore the nation to-day is poorer to the extent of at least £780,000,000 in capital assets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the further claim:
I do not mean to say that he is not to find the revenue to meet the expenditure."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1922; col. 1040 Vol. 153.]
The right hon. Gentleman first of all justified the repeal of the sinking fund by his broad statement that the National Debt had been reduced. His second point was that during the present year he was meeting his annual expenditure out of his annual revenue. How far is that accurate? Take the figures presented in the White Paper. Exclude the special revenue on the one hand and the special expenditure on the other. The total revenue is £820,775,000, and the expenditure is £845,846,000. In other words, there is a deficit during the present year of £25,000,000. In addition to that deficit the Government have taken power to borrow £14,000,000 for the payment of unemployment benefit. That amount should be brought into our annual statement, so as to reveal clearly to the public the
true financial position. I have made further inquiries into the ordinary revenue of the year and I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. His miscellaneous receipts are £22,000,000. There is a sum of £16,000,000 for the Currency note Reserve Account surplus. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say what that account is. I have asked several hon. Members if they could explain it to me, but I am at a loss for information. It has a very direct bearing upon this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims that he is meeting his ordinary expenditure out of the revenue of the year. I have endeavoured to show that, judged on his own figures, his annual expenditure exceeds his annual revenue by £25,000,000, and that to that figure must be added £14,000,000 borrowed for unemployment benefit. That is a total of £39,000,000. I submit, therefore, that the claim that the debt had been reduced fans to the ground, and that in the present Budget his annual revenue is insufficient to meet his annual expenditure. I have been trying to find out what causes the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take such a light view of our present financial position and not to set aside any money to meet the National Debt. I find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House on 13th February last dealt with the, question of the National Debt. The words he then used rather made light of the size of our National Debt. He said:
'"The £350,000,000 of the revenue which is taken from the taxpayer to-day is returned to him in the shape of dividends from the Government stock which he owns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1922; col. 704, Vol. 150.]
That rather implies that in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the size of the National Debt is of little consequence. I have gathered during the last two days that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no regard for the shibboleths of the past. He is willing to turn his back on the principles which have made this country great. But I feel that the size of our National Debt has a very direct bearing on the prosperity of the country. Any attempt the right hon. Gentleman can make during the next twelve months to reduce expenditure on the one hand and to reduce taxes on the other, and thus to have money available for the reduction of debt, will do much for the trade of the
country. He is raiding the Sinking Fund. He has also raided and drained the pockets of the taxpayer. We have pointed out on several occasions that the Government have searched with success the pockets of the British taxpayer—more successfully than any Government at any time. They drained the pockets of the taxpayer to make their Budget balance. They propose to raid the Sinking Fund. The sooner the Government return to the principles of the past, the sooner will prosperity return to this country.
8.0 p.m.
It is absolutely vital to a great exporting country to maintain its financial position. The case of France has been cited. Whatever country like France or any Continental nation may do is no guide to this country, a great exporting country dependent upon the maintenance of its financial position in the markets of the world. We can maintain that position only by largely reduced expenditure, on the one hand, and by further reductions of taxation on the other hand. The proposals of the Government are retrograde; they are not in keeping with the financial sacrifices made by the country during the last five years. I, know the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, "If I do not stop the automatic working of the Sinking Fund where am I to find the necessary money?" During a Debate in this House a few weeks ago the right hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) clearly pointed out that, in his opinion, certain Departments of the State were exceeding the normal expenditure. If the Chancellor would direct his attention to those Departments in the coming year, there might be a sum of money available at the end of the year for the reduction of the National Debt. I have endeavoured to deal with the claim put forward by the Chancellor on two grounds. First, as to our record during the last few years being unprecedented, I submit that during the last two years if there has been a reduction of the National Debt it has been secured by means which are not clearly realised by the public outside. They think, as the Debt has been reduced, the country can afford reduced taxation. On the other hand, national assets have been reduced, and the unfortunate possession of these assets by the Chancellor during the last two years has enabled him to reduce it.
We feel that there should be a drastic curtailment of the cost of armaments, so as to set free further large sums of money in the coming year for the reduction of the National Debt.

Mr. WISE: We have had two rich speeches on finance. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) ended up his speech by saying "honesty is the best policy." I quite agree with him, and I am sure as Britishers we will stick to honesty and see that any debts we may owe are properly paid. He referred to Austria. Well, Austria is in a terrible plight, but so are other countries. There are very few countries in the world balancing their budgets to-day, whether they were in the War or not, but the countries that were in the War are not balancing their budgets because they did not tax their people (luring the War. That is why we are in such a wonderful position with regard to our finance. The hon. and gallant Member also referred to the Sinking Fund. One hundred years ago we did something exactly similar to that which is being done in the present Budget. We cancelled our Sinking Fund for so many years. It answered correctly then, and I feel confident it will answer correctly in this case. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) referred to a speech of the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow. Perhaps he may also remember a speech made a month or so ago when the right hon. Gentleman stated that the actual reduction in our Debt had been over £500,000,000. That is a gigantic amount. I think there is no country in the world which has reduced its debt at all in the last five or six years, and it is remarkable to think that we could reduce ours by such an immense sum in six years—indeed it is really since 1919 or only three years. That is beyond all description.
My hon. Friend's statement that we were not reducing the amount in any way is entirely wrong. Has he referred to the Floating Debt? Does he watch those figures? If he looks at the figures of the Floating Debt he will find that it is down £390,000,000 in the last year. Think of what that means in interest alone, and as showing how the credit of the country is going up. Taking the interest on a 5 per cent. basis, it means a saving of £20,000,000 a year in interest alone. He also stated that our expenditure was
greater than our revenue. If he looks at this week's figures he will see that our revenue is £7,000,000 greater than our expenditure. That, again, has reduced our Floating Debt. I merely want to bring these figures in front of my hon. Friend to show him how wrong he is, and to show how good our credit is. I am not afraid of our great National Debt. As long as we increase wealth we need not be afraid of the National Debt. We will be able to pay the interest, and we will be able in due course to pay our Sinking Fund, but I feel at the moment it was right of the Chancellor to cease the Sinking Fund, perhaps for a year or so, so that it might help our trade, and it is trade we want.

Mr. SWAN: I desire to support the Amendment. We think the Chancellor is not making that extraordinary effort that should be made in order that the National Debt might be reduced, and we think this Clause should be deleted. We do not pretend to be financiers, but we cannot agree with the philosophy which has just been expressed by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise).

Mr. WISE: It is not philosophy; it is a statement of fact and figures.

Mr. SWAN: Well, as to one aspect of the facts and figures which he put before us, we are inclined to agree. There has been a substantial increase in the wealth of the country, but, side by side with that, there has been a most tragic effect in the increase of poverty among our people. We think something might have been done in order that those people who have accumulated vast amounts of wealth might be called upon to discharge the great obligations which their wealth entitles them to undertake towards the State and the people out of whom they have made it. All kinds of charges are imposed upon the poor of this land, and they are expected to worry through in their misery and despair without any hope. We are told that the financial position of the nation will not allow of further taxes in order that these debts may be reduced. Of course we disagree with the present policy of getting revenue. We have seen how, in order to meet liabilities, Government assets have been sold to the extent of £800,000,000. We disagree with the selling of those assets, but when they were sold, the
proceeds ought to have been earmarked for the reduction of National Debt. Regarding the ways and means whereby these debts may be reduced, we desire to show that there are avenues which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have entered upon had be been desirous of bringing in not only a certain amount to meet current revenue, but also of substantially reducing the debt of the nation.
Let us consider where we are as compared with 1913. I think it is an obligation imposed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ascertain the relative position of the financial resources of the nation compared with what it was in 1913–14, and the taxable possibilities. In 1913 the gross income brought under the review of the Inland Revenue was £1,111,000,000, and in 1914 it was 21,167,000,000. During the period of the War debt has been accumulating. We have found that there has been that enormous increase of wealth to the amount of £1,167,000,000, and in 1921, the latest figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to myself, show that it amounted to £3,000,000,000. We are told that the people who own this wealth cannot afford to pay any further taxes. We assert that these people are not being called upon to discharge their obligations to the State in the manner in which they ought to. Of course, higher taxes are being imposed upon them, but their incomes are greater than formerly.

Sir F. BANBURY: I thought we were discussing the Sinking Fund.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand how this argument as to general national wealth is relevant to the question of whether the Sinking Fund should or should not be suspended. It may be that the hon. Member will establish a connection, but it is not apparent, so far.

Mr. MOSLEY: Is it not in order to argue that the Sinking Fund is being raided in order to relieve other sources of taxation, and that it would be more desirable to keep the existing taxation rather than raid the Sinking Fund, as is being done?

Mr. SWAN: I am suggesting that there should be no suspension as is proposed by this Clause, and that instead of going
on borrowing the Chancellor ought to meet all liabilities and maintain that fund in order that the debt may be reduced by a deliberate financial effort directed towards those incomes which are accessible. Instead of that being done these people are escaping their liabilities, and a charge is being made upon the poor of the community. I have said we are in agreement with the hon. Member for Ilford as to the existence of this wealth, but we certainly do not agree with his policy of dealing with the wealth. We think that policy is not likely to assist trade nor to establish this country in the world equal with other nations. If the Chancellor wants further proof of the ability of the nation to make itself solvent in this way, he need only refer to the figures which he himself gave to me on 23rd May. According to his return of the incomes of people who are paying Supertax, incomes ranging from between £5,000 and 210,000 up to £100,000 were being received in 1914 by 14,008 persons. According to the Chancellor's figures the number of these people to-day has increased to 72,385. In 1914 the number of persons with incomes of between 255,000 and 265,000 was only 68. To-day we find the number is 335.
I suggest that a more honest and determined effort ought to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that these people ought to be called upon to pay their due liabilities. We may be told, "Look at the amount of taxation they are paying to-day.' We know they are paying a substantial amount, but what have they got left? We are called upon directly and indirectly, with small incomes, to discharge our obligations, which are out of all proportion to those of the people to whom I have been referring. I see that there were only 67 persons in 1913–14 with incomes between 275,000 and £100,000, whereas to-day we find they have gone up to 126; and today there are 169 persons with incomes over 2100,000, while in 1914 there were only 80. Therefore, we believe that we are entitled to support the deletion of this Clause in order that we might face the financial situation of this country in a more honest manner than we are doing, and place the burdens of the nation on the backs of those who are able to bear the burdens, instead of spreading them over the poorer elements, handicapping
prosperity in the future, and putting a millstone of debt round the neck of the nation.

Sir R. HORNE: I have listened to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan), but I do not think I have discovered anything very new in the point of view which he has urged upon the Committee. The figures which he has given us as the increase of incomes which has occurred in this country over the last few years are very fallacious. In point of fact, as my hon. Friend very well knows, the value of money is not even to-day what it was before the War, and if he will pursue his analysis a little further, he will find that while a larger number of people enjoy incomes which come within the Super-tax limit, they have very much less in most cases to spend than they had before the War. It would be quite wrong to draw from these figures an inference that there was a much larger spending power on the part of the people to whom he refers, as extracted from the tables which he got in reply to a question in the House of Commons. I confess I understand his point of view when he urges that it would be better to go in for higher taxation in this country than to reduce the Sinking Fund, or to suspend it altogether. I understand that point of view, but I do not believe in it. I am perfectly certain that any higher taxation imposed upon the people of this country in the nature of Income Tax or Super-tax at the present time would have the most detrimental results upon every class of the community, and not merely upon those who were asked to contribute it.
I turn to the characteristic speech that was made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). I confess I have listened to that speech so often now that I have ceased to be any longer moved by it. The hon. Gentleman always assumes an attitude of talking down to the rest of the Members of this House when he speaks upon matters of finance. From some cloudy height of Olympus he breathes forth warnings as to the parlous state of the country, and, indeed, if anybody outside listened to the speeches that the hon. Gentleman made, or paid any attention to the dire menaces which he imposed upon the country as to the appalling fate which awaits it, then, indeed, we should be in a worse position
to-day than we were three years ago. If his vaticinations could make us poorer, undoubtedly by this time we would have been an impoverished country, but, happily, nobody listens to him. He said. I could not deny, but I do entirely deny, that this country is worse off to-day than it was three years ago. Even if it were true, I do not think I should say it, because that is not the way to increase your country's credit, but there is absolutely no justification or ground whatsoever for the statement which the hon. Gentleman made. On the opposite side of the House they ventured upon many predictions as to the appalling results upon our credit of suspending the Sinking Fund, but every prophecy they made on this matter has been entirely falsified.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Which way is the dollar exchange going now?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. and gallant Friend is now looking at the produce of the pound sterling within the past week, due to particular purchases for consumption in this country—one of the seasonal purchases which must be made and which always affect currency at the time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope so.

Sir R. HORNE: I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to remember that the cost of the pound sterling since the date when the Budget speech was made, and when the indication of the suspension of the Sinking Fund was given to the world, has been one of steady progress, and even with the alteration of the last few days, owing to the seasonal purchases to which I have referred, the value of the pound sterling is still high as compared with what it was on the 1st May of this year. The hon. Member for Greenock quoted from a speech of mine, by which he sought to prove that I put the fact that there was a large National Debt in a light spirit—in far too light a spirit evidently, according to his point of view. The passage he quoted had nothing whatever to do with the point of view I take in regard to the National Debt. He referred to a statement which I had made in the House, in the month of February, I think it was, when I explained to the House that £350,000,000 of what was raised in taxation in this country was immediately handed back to the holders of Government securities in this country. I was not seeking to establish any point
of view with regard to the National Debt when I was making that statement. What I was endeavouring to show was that all the money that was raised by taxation was not unfruitfully used. The accusation which was made from the other side of the House was that all this money which the Government raised by way of taxation was never profitably employed, that it was, so to speak, money which was entirely unproductive, and that that was why trade and industry suffered so badly. In rebutting that argument, I pointed to the fact, which is one of great moment, that in truth the bulk of the National Debt is held in this country, and that £350,000,000 is distributed each year in the shape of interest upon that National Debt and must go somewhere. Where does it go? Of necessity, it goes back into the pockets of the people, and is spent in the production of further wealth.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. and gallant Friend asks why. May I remind him, of the speech which he made yesterday, in which he indicated—he was dealing especially, I admit, with the working class people—that the more money they got the more money was spent by them, which created industry for other people. If that be so in regard to the working classes of this country, it must be equally true that £350,000,000 distributed to the interest-holders of this country must equally pass into the channels of commerce, and fructify and produce employment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he meant to say that it went back to assist trade. Does he mean that it is simply spent in the ordinary way?

Sir R. HORNE: I think in the case I am putting it was truer than in the case the hon. and gallant Gentleman took, for the reason that while, undoubtedly, the ordinary expenditure of money in itself creates trade, although not always the trade that is most valuable, in point of fact the people who draw these sums in interest for the most part return it direct to industry. I leave that point, and I wish once more to deal with a matter which the hon. Member for Greenock always persists in misstating. I have certainly more than once in this
House replied to asseverations of my hon. Friend seeking to impute to me the statement that the National Debt has been reduced by £320,000,000 in the course of the last few years. Of course he knows very well I never made such a statement, and when I spoke of the reduction of the National Debt by £320,000,000, I said specifically that this was done during the course of the last two years. He today reiterated the statement without any qualification, and I am glad he states it here, when I can reply to him but I hope he will not state it elsewhere, where I have not an opportunity of replying. What I have said ought to be perfectly clear to the mind of the hon. Member. It is perfectly true that, during the last two years, we have reduced the Debt by about £320,000,000. That is a matter of history, and cannot in any way be controverted, but he returns to the statement that large sums, which had been obtained from the sale of assets, have been employed as ordinary revenue for the purpose of doing the business of the country. That is perfectly true, but he also forgets to put against the assets sold the special expenditure arising out of the War, and if he is going to say that the assets which remained after the War, and which have been sold, ought to be put to a special capital account, then equally he must agree that all these special burdens imposed upon us as the result of the War ought to be set against that capital account.
I turn to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He assured the Committee that he would not take up much of its time, and he did not, but he gave us some maxims, not entirely novel, such as "Honesty is the best policy"—a very good motto, which is apt, sometimes, to be forgotten. But I confess he has never succeeded in convincing me that we are doing anything but fairness by suspending the Sinking Fund in the present year. He says that we ought always to be paying off debt. What does that mean? How much? Ought we to be paying off £5,000,000, £10,000,000, £20,000,000 or £100,000,000 a year?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be living up to the promises of the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir R. HORNE: That is not an answer to the question which I put. If there be some obligation to pay off debt, then hon. Members should be able to tell me how much we ought to pay off each year. I imagine that the only real answer to that is that you must pay off as much as you can. If you can pay off £100,000,000, then pay off £100,000,000; if you can pay off £50,000,000, then pay off X50,000,000; but if you can pay off none except by doing something which will have the effect really of increasing the burden of the people, then, obviously, it becomes a matter of business, and you have got to decide what you ought to do. I venture to put forward this proposition, that, having paid off so much during the last two years, it is wise and prudent in the present year, when to pay off more would be detrimental to trade, to suspend the payment which hitherto we have made, and there is no Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past of this or any other country who has not recognised that fact.

You cannot find in the policy of any Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past, as I say, in this or any other country a positive assertion that in all circumstances, and at all times, you must pay off debt.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You will never find them in the future, I am afraid.

Sir R. HORNE: Evidently my hon. and gallant Friend does not mean to live up to his own professions. I did not rise really to re-argue a question which has been worn threadbare during the last few months in discussions in this House, but I think I have said enough, at least, to establish the fact that the Government is entirely free from the kind of imputations which have been put upon us, and that this Clause ought to receive the support of the Committee.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 74.

Division No. 168.]
AYES
[8.33 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hurd, Percy A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Armitage, Robert
Edgar, Clifford B.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Edge, Captain Sir William
Jesson, C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ednam, Viscount
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Barker, Major Robert H.
Evans, Ernest
Johnstone, Joseph


Barlow, Sir Montague
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Kidd, James


Barrand, A. R.
Fildes, Henry
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Barttey-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Betterton, Henry B.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Bigland, Alfred
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Forrest, Walter
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lloyd, George Butler


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis F
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lorden, John William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gould, James C.
Lort-Williams, J.


Briggs, Harold
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Greer, Sir Harry
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Bruton, Sir James
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Carr, W. Theodore
Hailwood, Augustine
Macquisten, F. A.


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hall, Rt-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Magnus, Sir Philip


Casey, T. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-


Cautley, Henry Strother
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Haslam, Lewis
Middlebrook, Sir William


Clough, Sir Robert
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Coats, Sir Stuart
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hinds, John
Murchison, C. K.


Cope, Major William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Nall, Major Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Neal, Arthur


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Nicholson. Reginald (Doncaster)


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Tickler, Thomas George


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col, Sir John
Rodger, A. K.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Roundels, Colonel R. F.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Waddington, R.


Parker, James
Rutherford. Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wallace, J.


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Pearce, Sir William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Parring, William George
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Seddon, J. A.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Pratt, John William
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Prescott, Major Sir W. H.
Shortt, RI. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Windsor, Viscount


Purchase, H. G.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Winterton, Earl


Rae, Sir Henry N.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Wise, Frederick


Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Stanton, Charles Butt
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Woolcock, William James U.


Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Remer, J. R.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Remnant, Sir James
Sugden, W. H.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.



Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Taylor, J.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
McCurdy.


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill).



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hallas, Eldred
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Banton, George
Halls, Walter
Robertson, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hayward, Evan
Royce, William Stapleton


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Irving, Dan
Spencer, George A.


Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, John Edward


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kennedy, Thomas
Tillett, Benjamin


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lawson, John James
Waterson, A. E.


Finney, Samuel
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gillis, William
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Myers, Thomas
Wintringham, Margaret


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghtnn-le-Spring)
Mr. Walter Smith and Mr. Swan.

CLAUSE 29.—(Continuance during current financial year of Section 58 of 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 18. 38 & 39 Viet., c. 45.)

Section fifty-eight of the Finance Act, 1920 (which provides that amounts applied out of the Revenue in paying off debt are to be deemed to be expenditure within the meaning of Sections four and five of the Sinking Fund Act, 1875), shall apply as

respects the current financial year as it applied as respects the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March. nineteen hundred and twenty-one.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212 Noes, 72.

Division No. 169.]
AYES
[8.41 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Betterton, Henry B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bigland, Alfred
Butcher, Sir John George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Carr, W. Theodore


Armitage, Robert
Blair, Sir Reginald
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Casey, T. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Breese, Major Charles E.
Cautley, Henry Strother


Barker, Major Robert H.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Briggs, Harold
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Barrand, A. R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Bruton, Sir James
Clough, Sir Robert


Coats, Sir Stuart
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Remer, J. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Remnant, Sir James


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Colley, Major Wm. Phillips
Johnstone, Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)


Cope, Major William
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Kidd, James
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Larmer, Sir Joseph
Rodger, A. K.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lloyd, George Butler
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthu[...]


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lorden, John William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lort-Willlams, J.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Scott, Sir Leslie (Live,p'l, Exchange)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Seddon, J. A.


Evans, Ernest
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Shaw, Hon. Alex, (Kilmarnock)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Magnus, Sir Philip
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mallaileu, Frederick William
Stanton, Charles Butt


Forrest, Walter
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Freon, Sir Waiter de
Middlebrook, Sir William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Sugden, W. H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Gould, James C.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Taylor, J.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murchison, C. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Greer, Sir Harry
Nall, Major Joseph
Tickler, Thomas George


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Neal, Arthur
Tryon, Major George Clement


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hailwood, Augustine
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Waddington, R.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Llv'pl,W. D'by)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wallace, J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Harmsworth, Han. E. C. (Kent)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Haslam, Lewis
Parker, James
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Pearce, Sir William
White, Col G. D. (Southport)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Harbert Pike
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Wider, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Hinds, John
Perring, William George
Winterton, Earl


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
Wise, Frederick


Holmes, J. Stanley
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Pratt, John William
Woolcock, William James U.


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Purchase, H. G.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Rae, Sir Henry N.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah



Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hurd, Percy A.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Rawifnson, John Frederick Peel
McCurdy.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Banton, George
Grundy, T. W.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Myers, Thomas


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Bromfield, William
Hallas, Eldred
O'Grady, Captain James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Halls, Walter
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Cairns, John
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hayward, Evan
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Robertson, John


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Finney, Samuel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silverown)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Foot, Isaac
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A.


Galbraith, Samuel
Kennedy, Thomas
Sutton, John Edward


Gillis, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Swan, J. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tillett, Benjamin




Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Wignall, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Waterson, A. E.
Wilson, James (Dudley)



Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Wintringham, Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan and




Mr. Mills.

CLAUSE 30.—(Power to borrow moneys required for certain sinking funds.)

(1) The Treasury may at any time, if they think fit, raise money in the same manner-in which they are authorised to raise money under Sub-section (1) of Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, for any of the following purposes, that is to say:

(a) for providing during the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sums to be issued thereout under Section forty-five of the Finance Act, 1921, for the purposes of the sinking fund established under that Section in connection with the three and one-half per cent. Conversion Loan; and
(b) for providing during the said financial year such sums as are required in connection with four per cent. Victory Bonds, or stock of bonds forming part of the four per cent. Funding Loan, 1960–1990, which are transferred in satisfaction of death duties, or as are required under Section two of the War Loan Act, 1919, to be issued to the National Debt Commissioners for the purposes of the sinking funds established in pursuance of that Section in connection with the four per cent. Victory Bonds and four per cent. Funding Loan, 1960–1990; and
(c)for providing for the repayment to the Consolidated Fund of all or any part of the sums issued out of that fund for the purposes aforesaid.

(2) This Section shall be construed as one with Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, and the provisions of that Section shall have effect accordingly.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "money," to insert the words
at a rate of interest not exceeding three and one-half per cent, per annum.
We all realise that in order to provide the moneys required for certain sinking funds some provision of this kind is necessary. Following the principle which I have laid down in previous Debates, my object is to save to the Government of this country as much money as possibly can he saved by trying to get the Government to put legislation into effect which will enable them to obtain the money required to pay the interest on certain loans at a much cheaper rate. One of the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of this House at various times
has been that there is a great burden of debt upon the country, and it has always been pointed out what a huge sum total of interest we have to pay on the loans Which have been issued. My contention has always been that many of those who are dealt with under this Clause are getting an advantage which, judging from the bank rate and the fact that certain things have happened in the money market, makes it unwise for the Government to pay so much in interest as they are doing, and my Amendment is to remedy this.
I think I can anticipate what the objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be to my proposal. He will probably say that it is impossible for him to borrow money at the present time at 3½ per cent. If that is going to be his argument, then it is very peculiar, because some of the Conversion Loans already in operation carry that rate of interest. The Conversion Loan that has already been issued, and is supposed to amount to per cent., actually means considerably more when you take into consideration the price at which conversion took place and the yield until the date of redemption. It is considerably more than the 3½ per cent which appears on the paper. I do not wish to have any investor being led to believe that he is going to have a greater yield for the whole period than 3½ per cent. The very first Conversion Loan by this Government means that those who were getting the interest, instead of receiving 4 per cent. it actually worked out calculating the actual yield to be 5½ per cent., or 1½ per cent. more than they had been receiving prior to the conversion. That is not a fair way of dealing with finance. It is unfair to treat the people of this country in this way, because they have to provide by taxation the money which the Government require to pay interest on their loans, and for these reasons I am endeavouring to limit the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I know from the views which are held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that but for the fact that he is sitting on the Treasury Bench he would be inclined to support the view I am putting forward.
The position he will take up will no doubt be that he must get the money, and as he has not up to the present said that he is going to accept my Amendment, I expect he is going to oppose it, because he does not desire any limit placed upon him. He wishes to be able to secure money at the rate of interest which he thinks the money market at the time is entitled to receive. I know quite well, and so does the right hon. Gentleman, that Government securities are looked upon as being the safest. As a matter of fact the way in which they are quoted on the Stock Exchange, according to the daily Press, shows that they are regarded as one of the safest investments in which anyone can put money. The rate of interest for a safe investment is always lower than that which is paid on a highly speculative investment. Consequently, there is no necessity for the Government continuing pay a high rate of interest. They are paying, approximately, only 1 per cent, less than what is received on normal industrial shares, most of which return 6 per cent. Without detaining the Committee any longer, because I like other Members want to hear the views of the right hon. Gentleman on this matter, I will simply express the hope that, in the interests of that sound finance which the right hon. Gentleman has proclaimed from that Box on several occasions this year, he will accept the Amendment and make it perfectly clear to monied people outside and to financiers who attempt to rig the market against himself and the Treasury in order to compel the payment of a high rate of interest, that this House does not give its consent to securing any loan on which a higher rate of interest is to be paid than that mentioned in the Amendment, namely 3½ per cent.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend is the most optimistic financier I know. He has been kind enough to attribute to me powers which unfortunately I do not possess. He assumes that whatever the British Government says ought to be the rate of interest, I necessarily can borrow at that rate. But there are very conclusive evidences that that view is not borne out by the facts. The British Government, like every other borrower, can only borrow at the price at which the market will lend. It is perfectly true that the
British Government can borrow money at cheaper rates than most other people, but still, like other borrowers who go into the market, it has to borrow at the price at which the market is willing to lend. During recent years we have been in a particularly favourable position by reason of the very unfortunate fact that industry in this country has been taking less money than usual, and accordingly more money is set free for the use of the Government and for finance generally. The result has been a glut of money in the market, and, under these circumstances, the most favourable rate of interest at which I can borrow on behalf of the British Government is the best test of what is possible. My hon. Friend wishes me to borrow at 3⅜ per cent. There is a British stock on the market to-day which yields a return of 3½, per cent. But what are people in the market willing to pay for that stock? They are only willing to pay £77 for £100 of it, thus showing that the market is prepared to lend money to the British Government at something like from £4 10s. to £4 13s. per cent. That is a complete test of what I am able to do.
9.0 p.m.
It is true that on short-term loans I can borrow money more cheaply, and every week the financial journals report the rates at which Treasury Bills are issued. That indicates what people are willing to lend money to the Government at on short-term loans. The loans I have hitherto been speaking about are perpetual loans redeemable at the option of the Government, but on short-term loans I can borrow much more cheaply and Treasury Bills are issued at the present time at £2 18s. per cent. I have, however, to replace that money as soon as the Bill comes to maturity. It may be a three months bill or a six months' bill. I can borrow more cheaply on the former. The difficulty is that one has a great deal of floating debt which it may be necessary to pay off at a moment when it is very embarrassing to the Government. Great financiers always say that the first duty of the Exchequer is to get rid of the floating debt, and naturally the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to get money on long terms so as to be free from embarrassment in the immediate future. That is the reason why everyone agrees that the time must come when it will of great advantage to the country to fund the debt. At
present it is coming due at various periods, always compelling the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find money to meet these maturing obligations. After what I have said I hope my hon. Friend, who has been kind enough to use expressions towards myself for which I am grateful, will see

that, even with all the powers the Chancellor of the Exchequer possesses, it is quite impossible to raise any money at the rate he desires to have it done.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 10; Noes, 243.

Division No. 170.]
AYES
[9.4 p.m.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Gillis, William
Robertson, John



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Swan, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Mills.


Lawson, John James




NOES


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Eyres-Monseil, Com. Bolton M.
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fildes, Henry
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Foot, Isaac
Lloyd, George Butler


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tngd'n)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestler-Walker, L.
Lorden, John William


Barker, Major Robert H.
Forrest, Walter
Lort-Williams, J.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Fraser. Major Sir Keith
Lunn, William


Barlow, Sir Montague
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Galbraith, Samuel
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Barrand, A. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Macquisten, F. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gould, James C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Bigland, Alfred
Grant, James Augustus
Mallaileu, Frederick William


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Greer, Sir Harry
Middlebrook, Sir William


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Grundy, T. W.
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Breese, Major Charles E.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hallwood, Augustine
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Briggs, Harold
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hall, Rt-Adml Sir W.(Liv'pl,W.D'by)
Mosley, Oswald


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, C. K


Bruton, Sir James
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Murray, Rt. H on. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Butcher, Sir John George
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Nall, Major Joseph


Carr, W. Theodore
Haslam, Lewis
Neal, Arthur


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hayday, Arthur
Newman, Sit R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Casey, T. W.
Hayward, Evan
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Cautley, Henry Strother
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col Sir John


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hinds, John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Clough, Sir Robert
Hirst, G. H.
Parker, James


Cents, Sir Stuart
Hogge, James Myles
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pearce, Sir William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Holmes, J. Stanley
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Pennefather, De Fonbianque


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)
Perring, William George


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.


Cope, Major William
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pratt, John William


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey. Guildford)
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Purchase, H. G.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vera
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B
Handles, Sir John Scurrah


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Doyle, N. Grattan
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Edgar, Clifford B.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Remer, J. R.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Johnstone, Joseph
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Kidd, James
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Evans, Ernest
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Stephenson, Lieut.-colonel H. K.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Rodger, A. K.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Rose, Frank H.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Wignall, James


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Sugden, W. H.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Royce, William Stapleton
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Winterton, Earl


Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Taylor, J.
Wintringham, Margaret


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wise, Frederick


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Wood, Hon. Edward F L. (Ripon)


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Tryon, Major George Clement
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Woolcock, William James U.


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Waddington, R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Seddon, J. A.
Wallace, J.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castls-on-T.)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)



Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Spencer, George A.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.
McCurdy.


Stanton, Charles Butt
Watson, Captain John Bertrand



Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 (Charge on Consolidated Fund under Section 24 (1) of 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 67, to extend to the growing produce of Fund) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 32.—(Temporary continuance of exemption from Corporations Profits Tax of profits of public utility companies, and building societies.)

The exemption from Corporation Profits Tax given by the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section fifty-two of the Finance Act, 1920, shall be continued from the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, and in Section fifty-eight of the Finance Act, 1921, for the words "the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two" there shall be substituted the words "the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-five."

Sir W. PEARCE: I beg to move, after "1920" ["Section fifty-two of the Finance Act, 1920"], to insert the words
except in the case of any undertaking which is trading beyond its statutory obligations.
This Clause is the first Clause that deals with the Corporations Profits Tax. It is true that it does not refer to the imposition of the tax, but it provides for the exception of certain corporations. Although it would not be in order on this occasion to go into the question of the heavy burden of this tax, I think the Committee will agree that the burden is so heavy that it is of great importance that its incidence should be fair and equal. Everyone knows that the tendency at the present time is for public utility companies to enlarge their
activities, and directly they get beyond their statutory limits they are in fair and open competition with other companies who are subject to tax, so that there is a palpable disadvantage. Instances of this are not rare. Railway companies have lately had before Parliament a heavy Bill, which has now disappeared, in which they proposed to act in connection with road traffic. Tramway companies, in some instances, use motor omnibuses. Gas companies enlarge the field of their chemical operations far beyond the working up of their own products, and manufacture and sell in open competition such substances as muriatic acid, nitric acid, and bleaching powder, which are the business of other companies who are liable to tax. The Port of London Authority is not subject to the tax. The wharfingers of London are. The wharfingers and the Port of London Authority are in competition, and I thought it was worth while to call attention to the very unequal and unfair incidence of this tax. The position of these public utility companies is very much more powerful than it was two years ago. In those days they had to face the situation created by the War. Since the first exemption was given the House has passed the Railways Act, and I was Chairman of a Committee in which the statutory obligation as to the amount of fares on tramways was removed. There has been a Gas Bill. I think the House wants to remember that the position of these statutory companies is very much changed for the better, and that makes it all the more important that the incidence of this tax should be altered. I think it is a bad tax. It is so bad that. I do not really want to put public utility companies under it. But the House and the
Government ought to realise how unfair its incidence is. My first object is to try to put the Government out of conceit with the Corporations Tax as being an unfair tax. My second object is to try to curb the ardour to some extent of public utility companies which are going in for general competition. They are in a very good position now. They are pretty well secured in their pre-War dividends, and perhaps a little more, and there are very few industries which would not be glad to change their position with these public utility companies. They are in a position of ease and comfort and they ought to realise that if they intend to go in for general competition they are to a certain extent destroying their own position. If that line of activity is pursued by public utility companies—it may be for the good of the public or it may not; I think not—if they are going to extend their general activity into every walk of life and enter into general competition in all sorts of things, good-bye to the position of privilege which the Government gives them under this exemption Clause. I do not know that I want to push it any further than that, but it is a point of some substance, and I thought it right to call attention to it, and get the views of the Government, in the hope that we might show the Government still more the unequal incidence of the tax and in some way give a warning to the public utility companies that they should live and let live, and unless there are very strong reasons for it they should not be constantly attempting to enlarge their activities beyond their statutory duties.

Sir L. SCOTT: I recognise, as everyone does, that the Corporation Profits Tax is open to criticism of a serious kind in many ways, but the question whether it is a good or a bad tax does not arise on this Amendment. It is important to consider, first of all, what the Clause provides, and, secondly, what the Amendment provides. When the Corporation Profits Tax was introduced, it was considered that it was not fair to apply it to companies which by statute were prevented from making more than a certain dividend, or were otherwise limited in the scope of their profit-making powers. Gas companies cannot declare
more than a certain dividend. They are obliged to devote profits over and above the amount necessary to declare that dividend to a reduction of the price of gas. Railway companies cannot charge more than certain rates and fares. Dock authorities are in a similar position, having their charges limited by statute. All these statutory companies, to which the Corporation Tax was not originally applied, stand in the same general position of being concerns which save their profit-making power tied up and limited by Statute. To apply the Corporation Profits Tax, therefore, to those concerns would be to apply a tax which in its incidence would necessarily have a different effect upon shareholders interested in the concerns from the case of a tax where the company was one upon which there was no limit at all as to its profit-making power except the conditions of the market and business generally. That being so, Parliament took the view that the tax should not be applied during the year when it was first applied to other companies, and, secondly, that as the position was a permanent position and as it was thought possible, and may be still possible, that the Corporation Profits Tax would not be a permanent tax in the financial system of the country, upon which I express no opinion, it would be desirable not to deal with these statutory companies for only one year, but to put them outside the category of the tax altogether for a period of time, and so it was arranged that they should stand outside the tax altogether down to 31st December of this year. This Clause merely proposes to extend that enactment for a further period of three years on the same sort of grounds that Parliament imposed that limitation in the first instance and nothing more.
The Amendment. says that from that general provision of immunity from Corporation Profits Tax of the statutory concerns an exception should be made so that the concerns falling within the exception would ipso facto become liable to tax. I say nothing upon the question of order as to whether that would impose a charge. What are the conditions upon which the Mover of the Amendment suggests that these concerns should be brought under the harrow of the tax? Let us look at it. The hon. Member says
"except in the case of any undertaking—that is, an undertaking of the kind which is at present exempted—"which is trading beyond its statutory obligations." He does not say "trading beyond its statutory powers," but, "beyond its statutory obligations." In order to make quite sure what was meant by the word "obligations" I looked up the question which the hon. Member put last month to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer then if he proposed to continue exemption from Corporation Profits Tax to statutory companies which were engaged in competitive business outside of their primary duty. The answer given was that it was proposed to extend the existing exemption for a further period of three years. The gist of the hon. Member's position therefore is that if a statutory company does anything beyond what it is its obligation or duty to do, it ought not to have immunity from the tax.
Let us see what that means. What is the statutory duty of a railway company? I think it is to run two Parliamentary trains a day. Is the railway company that does anything more than that to be deprived of immunity? A gas company is under a statutory duty to make and supply gas. In the course of carrying out that duty it produces coal tar, and in the ordinary way of business various byproducts are made by gas companies out of coal tar. It is not the statutory duty of a gas company to make any one of those things—

Sir W. PEARCE: I think on that I said "over and above the manufacture of their residual products." I was not attacking the operations which the Solicitor-General has mentioned to the Committee. If, however, the words of my Amendment are wrong, I am quite ready to adopt others.

Sir L. SCOTT: Take another illustration. A gas company, I am told, hires out gas stoves. It is not its duty to hire out gas stoves, and if it does hire them out, is the entire concern to pay Corporation Profits Tax on the whole of its profits? I am merely making this sort of unpleasant criticism, if I may say so to the hon. Member, to show that this is an exception that will not work. Let us put aside for a moment the exact wording of the Amendment, which, I submit, will not do at all, and consider
the thing broadly on its merits. The principle of not putting under the harrow of the Corporation Profits Tax a concern whose profit-making power is limited by Statute was adopted by Parliament, and rightly so. Because, incidentally, in a purely ancillary way to its main business, a railway company or a gas company does something that is not its main business; is that any reason for making any difference? I respectfully submit that the Amendment, though it raises interesting questions, ought not to be accepted by the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir ARTHUR FELL: I do not think it is right that we should let this Clause pass without pointing out, as far as is possible, the difficulties which arise in connection with the Corporation Profits Tax. I will not anticipate the discussion which may take place at a later stage on new Clauses, but I would point out that if you decrease the number of companies which are concerned with this Tax, and if you have to produce the same amount of money from the tax, you thereby increase the amount of tax which will fall upon those companies that are liable to it. Therefore, if it be said that the Government want to get £20,000,000, or £30,000,000, or whatever it may be, out of the Corporation Profits Tax, and if the tax be put on a smaller number of companies, they will necessarily have a much heavier charge laid upon them than if the tax were spread over a larger number of corporations. The railway companies comprise an enormous amount of the investments in this country, and the ordinary shareholders in those railway companies are free in their dividends from the payment of Corporation Profits Tax. When the tax was originally put on, it was not quite as the Solicitor-General said in his first speech. I believe it was decided that the railway companies should be exempted because at the time they were under Government control, and the Government had to make up the dividends which were to be paid to the shareholders. If the Government had deducted the amount of the Corporation Profits Tax which would have fallen upon the railway companies, it would, while receiving this
tax on the one hand, have had to pay it back with the other, and so there would have been no benefit whatever.
For that reason the Government exempted the railway companies. Then, the question was raised whether the Government would exempt other companies, and the exemption was increased to cover the utility companies—the gas and water companies. Originally the railway companies were exempted, because they were under the control of the Government and the Government never taxes its own property because it has to pay it back, and so it is useless. Now, however, the railway companies are working on their own account they are charging excessively heavy rates, and are perfectly able to stand this tax, as are also their shareholders. I cannot see any difference in the position of shareholders in a railway company in England from that of shareholders in any of the great steamship companies. They are doing equally useful work, and are possibly providing something like the same dividends to the shareholders. The steamship companies, however, have to pay the Corporation Profits Tax and Income Tax, whereas the railway companies escape the Corporation Profits Tax and pay only income Tax. That is a material point in the railway companies' favour, and it is a question which is raised at every annual meeting of the steamship companies, when it is pointed out that the Corporation Profits Tax is pressing very heavily upon their shareholders.
When the Government started this Tax it. was not their intention that any ordinary shareholders, who are receiving their dividends, should be free from it. The railways were only exempted to save the Government from receiving this amount and then having to pay it back again. The original proposal was that this exemption should cease with the end of Government control of the railways. That should be done, though it may not be possible this year. I think I ought to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this exemption is putting an additional charge on the shareholders of all other companies in the country, because they are paying what the shareholders in the railway companies do not provide in the way of this taxation. It is right that we should point this out
now, and perhaps it may be another nail in the coffin of the Corporation Profits Tax in the future.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that this Debate will be another nail in the coffin of the Corporation Profits Tax. I think, however, the hon. Member was wrong in one particular—

Sir F. BANBURY: He was wrong in every particular.

Colonel WED G WOOD: —when he said that exemption was given to the railway companies first and to the statutory companies afterwards. My recollection is that it Ns as the other way about, and that the statutory companies proved to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the Corporation Profits Tax were levied on them they would not be able to pass it on to the consumer. The statutory companies, in consequence, were relieved of the tax. Immediately, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) explained to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with equal lucidity, that if the Corporation Profits Tax was levied upon railway companies, the railways could not pass it on to the consumer, and that their shareholders would have to pay the tax. I recollect the rapidity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the hard case of the railway company which could not pass the tax on, and he exempted them for three years from payment of the Corporation Profits Tax. It was a perfect illustration of what the Government intended when they introduced the Corporation Profits Tax. They introduced it because they felt that they had discovered a new way of plucking the goose with the least squeaking; but when it left this House, after the vested interests had looked after it, the Corporation Profits Tax was not levied upon any business which could not transfer the tax to the consumer.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Quite right, too.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Oh, yes. Why should not the consumer pay? A tax which cannot be transferred to the public is preferable to a tax which can be transferred to the public. My principal objection to the Corporation Profits Tax is that it is a new form of tax which is inevitably transferred to the consumer, thereby causing the greatest possible
hardship. On every article that is produced in this country the Corporation Profits Tax is paid. On every article that is bought in this country for home manufacture—

The CHAIRMAN: There will be an opportunity of discussing the Corporation Profits Tax. The only question now is whether certain exemptions shall or shall not be continued.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was trying to show that the object of this exemption was obvious. It was to exclude all those capitalist concerns which could not pass the tax on, and I want to eliminate that exemption, not because I want to penalise unfortunate capitalists like railway companies, but because I want to abolish Corporation Profits Tax. It is a tax which falls only upon ordinary shareholders. Preference and debenture shareholders are exempt. The best way to end the tax is to see that everybody contributes to it, instead of exempting those people who, in my opinion, are best able to bear it. Three years ago, when the railways were exempted from the tax, the railways, and especially the ordinary shareholders, were in a very different position from their position to-day. Three years ago the ordinary shares in railways were depreciated 100 per cent., almost, from pre-War values. In those days there may have been some case for exempting the ordinary shareholders of railway companies from this burden, but now, after the passage of the Government Railways Act, which has done the ordinary shareholders of railway companies so much good, I hardly think that a case can be made any longer in favour of the ordinary shareholders. They have done very well during the past year. I suppose that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) is a fortunate owner of ordinary shares. If so, I congratulate him. He has done very well. Since the passage of the Railways Act, North Easterns have nearly doubled their price, and other railway companies have done very well. I do not see the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) present, but the Midland Railway Company has done very well. The ordinary shareholders in railways and the deferred shareholders have done very well.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that this Clause continues the exemption of certain statutory companies from the payment of Corporation Profits Tax at the
end of three years. I do not understand that it does anything more or anything less than that. The hon. and gallant Member has made a statement in regard to the position of railway ordinary shareholders. Shall I be in order in following the hon. Member, and speaking at length upon the position of ordinary shareholders in railway companies in 1914 and in the present year, and showing how the Railways Act of last year has influenced their position?

The CHAIRMAN: The question being whether a company like a railway company should have further exemption or not, while I wish, in the interest of the dispatch of business, that I could rule both hon. Members out of order; but I fear I must admit the one, and having admitted the one, I shall, of necessity, have to admit the other.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Baronet knew perfectly well that I was in order, and he will be in order when he tries to rebut my argument. My argument is, that whereas three years ago there was, perhaps, in the mind of charitable Members of the Government some case for exempting ordinary shareholders of railway companies from this impost, that case has now ceased to operate since the value of the shares of these ordinary shareholders has nearly doubled in price during the last three years. Therefore, we should abolish this exemption of railway companies from the Corporation Profits Tax. They were originally exempted, not on account of the low price of the shares compared with the pre-War price, but because they could not pass the tax on to the consumers. I am against a tax which can be passed on to the consumer and in favour of taxation which cannot be passed on to the consumer.

Clauses 33 (Extension to Malay States of Section 20 of 57 & 58 Vict., c. 30) and 34 (Repayments in respect of spoiled and unused stamps) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) should come as a new Clause, and not as an Amendment to Clause 35.

Clause 35 (Construction, short title, Application, and repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Charge of higher rate of duty on change in user, etc., of mechanically propelled vehicles.)

(1) Where a licence has been taken out for a mechanically-propelled vehicle at any rate under the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, and the vehicle is at any time while such licence is in force used in an altered condition or in a manner or for a purpose which brings it within, or which if it was used solely in that condition or in -that manner or for that purpose would bring it within, a class or description of vehicle to which a higher rate of duty is applicable under the said Schedule, duty at such higher rate shall become chargeable in respect of the licence for the vehicle.
(2) Where a licence has been taken out for a mechanically-propelled vehicle, and by virtue of such user as aforesaid a higher rate of duty becomes chargeable and duty.at the higher rate was not paid before the vehicle was so used, the person so using the vehicle shall be liable to a penalty of an amount equal to three times the difference between the duty actually paid on the licence and the amount of duty at such higher rate or twenty pounds, whichever amount is the greater.
(3) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three."—[Mr. Neal.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have to move one or two new Clauses dealing with motor taxation, but they do not raise any serious controversial questions, such as the question how taxation should be raised for road purposes. In order to make clear the first Clause I shall have to deal with certain taxation in the Finance Act of 1920. Under that Act, by the Second Schedule, the rate of duty -was fixed for various vehicles according to their character. The 4th Clause related to vehicles used solely in the course of trade or in agriculture. The 5th Clause was for vehicles used or adapted for carrying goods in the course of trade, and for such things as motor lorries. The 6th Clause was intended to cover mainly private motor cars which were taxed according to horse-power. As is always the case in reference to new taxation, ingenuity was brought to bear by certain persons in the effort to get exemption from some of the duties and to escape with
the horse-power tax. I may give one or two instances in illustration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] If that be the case, I will content myself by moving that the Clause be now read a Second time.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 9 of The Roads Act, 1920.)

(1) Section nine of the Roads Act, 1920 (which enables manufacturers and dealers in mechanically-propelled vehicles to take out a general licence in respect of vehicles used by them in lieu of separate licences for each such vehicle) shall extend to repairers of mechanically-propelled vehicles.
(2) It shall be lawful for the Minister of Transport to make two sets of Regulations under the said Section nine prescribing the conditions subject to which general licences are to be issued and prescribing the purposes for which the holder of a general licence may use it, and in that case—

(a) if a licence to which the one set of Regulations applies is taken out by a manufacturer, repairer, or dealer, the yearly rate of duty shall be twenty-five pounds, or in the case of a licence to be used only for vehicles chargeable with duty under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, five pounds;
(b) if a licence to which the other set of Regulations applies is taken out by a manufacturer, repairer, or dealer, the yearly rate of duty shall be five pounds, or in the case of a licence to be used only for vehicles chargeable with duty under paragraph one or paragraph two of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, one pound.

Provided that any such licence to which the first-mentioned set of Regulations is applicable may be taken out for one quarter of the year only, beginning the first day of January, the twenty-fifth day of March, the first day of July, or the first day of October, and in the case of any licence so taken out the duty shall be thirty per cent. of the full annual duty.
It shall be at the option of every manufacturer or repairer of, or dealer in, mechanically-propelled vehicles wishing to take out a general licence whether the licence is one to which the one or other of the two sets of Regulations applies.
(3) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and on the rates of duty for general licences prescribed by the Section becoming chargeable the rates prescribed for such licences by Section nine of the Roads Act, 1920, shall cease to be chargeable.—[Mr. Neal.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. NEAL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is to meet the wishes of those who are interested in the sale and manufacture of motor cars to enable them to have fewer classes of what are called general identification plates. The matter was investigated by a Committee, and the proposals embodied in this Clause are the result of unanimous recommendations of that Committee.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Alkali, etc., works stamp duty.)

Sub-section (6) of Section nine of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906 (which relates to the Stamp Duty chargeable on certificates of registration of alkali and other works), shall have effect as if for the words "five pounds" there were substituted the words "ten pounds," and for the words "three pounds" there were substituted the words "six pounds."

Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the Stamp Duty chargeable in respect of any certificate of registration issued before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.—[Sir J. Baird.]

Brought; up, and read the First time.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It was proposed by the Geddes Committee that the stamp duty chargeable on certificates of registration of alkali and other works under the Act of 1906 should be increased so as to cover the cost of inspection and collection. That would have entailed the Government Department fixing the exact amount of duty. It was obvious when the matter was before the Committee of Ways and Means that the Committee preferred that the duty should be fixed in the Statute by the House itself. Deferring to that view, the Government are now proposing that the stamp duties should be doubled, a proposal to which I understand those interested in the trade do not offer any opposition. The effect is that while we do not carry out the whole of the proposals of the Geddes Committee by increasing the duties to an extent which would enable the whole of the cost of collection and inspection to be recovered, we do substantially increase them, so that
whereas we have hitherto obtained an amount equal to one-third of the cost, we shall, if the new proposal is adopted, receive about two-thirds of the amount.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduced Customs duties on, sugar.)

In lieu of the present Customs Duties, drawbacks, and allowances in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharine, there shall as from the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, be charged, levied, and paid the duties specified in Part I of the First Schedule of this Act, and there shall be paid and allowed the drawbacks and allowances set out in Part TT of that Schedule.—[Mr. Holmes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The reduction of the duty on sugar which is proposed in this Clause is a matter on which most Members of this House could speak for at least one hour, but having regard to the fact that to a certain extent there is a bargain with the Government and that we had a very full discussion on the indirect taxation embodied in the duty on tea, which is very similar to the duty on sugar, I will not detain the Committee long. Many arguments were advanced last Monday in favour of reducing the duty on tea, and all these arguments can be also advanced with regard to sugar in addition to many other arguments which do not apply to tea. Sugar is far more used than tea. Tea is used by itself. Sugar is used for making all sorts of things, including, as I am reminded by an hon. Member, the manufacture of beer. From the point of view of children it is far more important to reduce the duty on sugar than that on tea. The Chancellor of Exchequer may say that it is more difficult for him to give a reduction in the duty on sugar, but that does not weigh very heavily with us. I read up the last Debate on sugar this morning, and there were so many suggestions there for speeches which would occupy time that I tried to avoid bringing any notes to the House, but the subject is so familiar, and we have discussed it so often, that it is not neccessary for me to say any more.

Sir L. SCOTT: The proposal involved in this new Clause would cost the Government in a full year £14,000,000, and no doubt the hon. Member had that figure in his mind. As he has said the arguments in favour of the reduction of the duty on sugar are so familiar that he did not think it necessary to mention any of them. Would he think it discourteous on my part if I were to suggest that the still more conclusive arguments against the reduction of the duty at the present moment are so familiar to every Member of the House that I may venture to pay him the compliment of flattering him by imitating him and saying no more on the subject?

Dr. MURRAY: I think this Amendment has been treated by the Government with a little less respect than it deserved. The Mover should not have been impressed so much with the necessity of fulfilling the supposed bargain with regard to the Budget as to prevent him bringing forward some of the arguments in favour of the Amendment. If carried, the Amendment would bring benefit to every family in the land. People are beginning to realise that sugar is a food. In the old days they thought it was a luxury. It has now become the food of the poor. It is one of the best sources of energy for human beings. If the Solicitor-General were playing golf for a whole day he would get on much better if he took with him a bag full of sweets rather than a flask of whisky.

Sir L. SCOTT: That is what I do.

Dr. MURRAY: I felt sure that the learned Solocitor-General must be using sugar instead of a flask on occasions of that sort, and it is the use of sugar, probably, which enables him to sit here until 4 o'clock in the morning "without turning a hair." Seriously, this is an important Amendment. The Government ought to address themselves to the necessity of reducing the tax on sugar. It has been the aim of all Chancellors of the Exchequer, at least, of all Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer, gradually to reduce the taxes on food. The reduction of the tax on tea will be of practically no use to the consumer, but a reduction of the tax on sugar would be a decided benefit to every family in the land. It would increase the purchasing power of the people, and the use
of more sugar would mean that the workers would have more energy and that there would be more production in almost every way. I hope that hon. Members who are interested in the Amendment will compel the Government to treat the matter with more seriousness.

Mr. WATERSON: I admire the modesty of my hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading of this new Clause. He was certainly very brief. It was my privilege on Tuesday to speak on the remission of the tax, so far as the sugar factories at Kelham and Cantley were concerned, and I quoted to the House a telegram which had been sent to me when the Budget was first introduced. I trust that in quoting that telegram again I shall not be taking too much liberty, but I feel justified in re-reading it because of its importance, and as a means of drawing attention to the fact that there were certain manufacturers, wholesale distributors and retailers of sugar who had gone so far as to prepare for a reduction of the tax. It is a telegram from a very big firm, and reads as follows:
Rumours here that Sugar Tax will he reduced, to operate on some deferred dates This would be serious mistake for everyone. Have prepared for reduction being effective from to-night. If deferred, all the great inconvenience of preparation for reducing stocks etc. will have to be repeated.
That telegram is indicative of the mind of those who are engaged in the sugar trade.

Sir L. SCOTT: Would the hon. Member say from whom that telegram came?

Mr. WATERSON: I shall have pleasure in handing it to the Solicitor-General.

Sir L. SCOTT: Would he state to the House who sent it?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. WATERSON: It was from the English Co-operative Wholesale Society, Manchester. I do not think anyone will deny that, as far as sugar is concerned, they are in a responsible position, and can speak with authority. They were prepared for a reduction, as I said, and from information which has been given to me they were not the only people who were prepared. As far as the Sugar Tax is concerned, it is well known that had we been able to secure a penny off
sugar it would have meant, roughly speaking, £12,000,000. The Solicitor-General said £14,000,000.

Sir L. SCOTT: The Amendment would cost £14,000,000. A penny off the tax is about £11,000,000.

10.0. P.M.

Mr. WATERSN: The Government in their wisdom or otherwise have reduced the taxation upon tea, which means about £5,000,000 loss to the Treasury. That is indirect taxation. As far as direct taxation is concerned, the Government are prepared to lose more than £30,000,000. As has been said, here is a commodity which is used by every living soul in the country. No Member of this House can go to his table and enjoy even ordinary fruits without the question of sugar arising. It is not merely the taxation on the ordinary sugar one has to consider, but its effects on the breakfast table. In connection with confectionery, tinned fruits, mineral waters and other things, it is extensively used. I wish the Committee to realise the benefit that would accrue from some reduction in the tax. I do not wish to dwell on the exigencies of the moment as they affect the Government, but I submit that on principle, this Sugar Tax is inherently bad. It is an outrageously heavy tax upon the indirect taxpayer. I may quote a few figures to show how the tax has risen. In 1901 it was 4s. 2d. per cwt. In 1908 it was reduced to 1s. 10d. In 1915 it jumped up to 9s. 4d. In 1916 it went to 14s., and in 1918 it was increased to £1 5s. 8d. per cwt. Can the learned Solicitor-General give any other ease in which a tax on food has risen to such an alarming extent as that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Beer"] Some of us differ as to whether or not beer is a food, but sugar is admittedly a food and one upon which everybody in this country depends. I ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider this question before the Report stage. We have become accustomed to appeals of this kind. One or two of them fell not upon deaf ears, but upon sympathetic ears. I do not know the number of times the Chancellor has given way to appeals, but I am rather anxious to see what the new Finance Bill will be like when it comes up on the Report stage, if all the promises made are fulfilled.
The increase in the Sugar Duty has a tendency to reduce consumption. In
1913 there was consumed in this country more than 34,500,000 cwts. In 1919, when the tax had risen, the consumption decreased to 30,500,000 cwts. In 1920, the last year for which I have the figures, with the extensive taxation placed upon this main commodity, the consumption had decreased to just over 22,000,000 cwts. There we have a proof that the increased tax is bearing heavily upon the greatest class of the consuming public, which is the working class. I therefore make this appeal to the Solicitor-General, though candidly I do not make it with any confidence. He will at once ask how he can sacrifice £11,000,000, and it would be out of order for me to show him the avenue by which, if he cared to tread it, he would be able to compensate himself for the loss. We have given advice on more than one occasion which might have saved the Government from some of the most difficult positions in which they find themselves, but the House in its wisdom refused that advice coming from these benches. In submitting a sincere and earnest demand for the abolition of this tax, I might suggest some compensating revenue, but I would be out of order in doing so. I believe the advancement of trade, the general prosperity, and even the moral and social welfare of the people, can only be brought about, when we are prepared to give some relief in indirect taxation. The more we increase the spending power of the great majority of the people, the more will trade increase and the more we increase the staple trades of our land, the more it will eventually encourage trade abroad. I could easily show my right hon. Friend a method of securing this £11,000,000 if he relieved us of this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not merely to consider the point of view of the Super-tax or even that of the ordinary Income Tax payer. There is another aspect of the question. He has a moral right to look at if from the point of view of the social well-being of the community, neglect of which now may mean in a few years' time a greater drain on the revenue of the State. To-day if there is one plea which stands out more than any other, and to which the Government of any country should look seriously, it is the plea that something should be done to mitigate the hardships of the poor. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, without a great amount of hope, but with all sincerity, to see if he cannot devise
some means to relieve the people from this tax, and in doing so he will confer a boon and a blessing on hundreds of thousands of the poorest people of our land, who deserve far greater consideration than this Finance Bill is giving them.

Mr. FOOT: Nothing in the Budget statement of the Chancellor caused more disappointment throughout the country than the announcement that no relaxation was to be made in the very heavy burden represented by the Sugar Duty. Had it been possible for the Chancellor to make some slight remission in this respect it would have been welcomed in practically every home in the country. No tax bears so heavily on the people and no tax affects every member of the community as does this particular tax. I was hopeful that when the Solicitor-General replied, he might have been able to suggest that while a remission was impossible this year it was the serious intention of the Government to see that the next remission of indirect taxation was in this direction. Great pressure will be brought to bear, later on, for a reduction of the tax on beer. No arguments can be produced for a reduction of the tax on beer that can carry anything like the same weight as the arguments in support of a reduction of the sugar tax. Even the welcome reduction of the tea tax was not so generally welcome, as would be a reduction of the sugar tax. Every member of the community would he immediately affected. The burden on every home would be immediately lightened. It is a most unfortunate thing that just prior to the introduction of the Budget, there was not an organisation of the demand for a reduction of the sugar tax, as there was organisa-

tion in favour of a demand for a reduction in the Income Tax. Petitions poured in from every direction as a result of an organised appeal, and if we could have ascertained what the real wishes of the housewives of this country were, I am sure there would have been a much more widespread demand for a reduction in this respect than for a reduction in Income Tax. While the Solicitor-General was able to hold out no hope of a remission in this respect, and while he talked of the impossibility of effecting a reduction of £14,000,000, it might have been open to bring about a small reduction, which would be welcomed, particularly by the children, whose sweets are so costly that it is only the more well-to-do children who can afford them. If hon. Members of about the same age as myself will compare what a child can get in a shop for a penny to-day with what a child could get in a shop for a penny 35 years ago, I think they would find that the children of this country would be very much interested in this Debate, seeing that 30 or 35 years ago, when some of us were children, we were able to get four times as much as our children can get to-day for the same amount. Therefore, seeing that there is no tax remission that would cover so wide an area, relieve so many burdens, and affect so many homes as a remission in this direction, I hope the hon. Member will press his Amendment. I shall certainly support him in the Lobby, and I believe there will be behind his action the general approval of the country.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 79 Noes, 227.

Division No. 171.]
AYES
[10.18 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Irving, Dan


Banton, George
Finney, Samuel
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Foot, Isaac
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Barnes, Major H (Newcastle, E.)
Galbraith, Samuel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Gillis, William
Kennedy, Thomas


Bromfield, William
Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Brown, James [Ayr and Bute]
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawson, John James


Cairns, John
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lunn, William


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hltchin)
Grundy, T. W.
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Clough, Sir Robert
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Halls, Walter
Myers, Thomas


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Harmswerth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nall, Major Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayday, Arthur
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hayward, Evan
O'Grady, Captain James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Hogge, James Myles
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Randall, Athelstan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Spencer, George A.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Sutton, John Edward
Wignall, James


Robertson, John
Swan, J. E.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Rose, Frank H.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Royce, William Stapleton
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)



Sexton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Tillett, Benjamin
Mrs. Wintringham and Mr.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Holmes


Sitch, Charles H.
Waterson, A. E.



NOES


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gould, James C.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Parker, James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greer, Sir Harry
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Grenfell, Edward Charles
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Barker, Major Robert H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon Frederick E.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Barlow, Sir Montague
Guinness, Lieut.-Col Hon. W. E.
Perring, William George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hailwood, Augustine
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.


Barrand, A. R.
Halt, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pratt, John William


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Haslam, Lewis
Purchase, H. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Blgiand, Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hinds, John
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remer, J. R.


Brassey, H. L. C,
Hood, Sir Joseph
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Briggs, Harold
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Bruton, Sir James
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Rodger, A. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard, Major S. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hurd, Percy A.
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Casey, T. W.
James, Limit.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm.,W).
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Johnstone, Joseph
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Llverp'l, Exchange)


Clay, Lieut,Colonel H. H. Spender
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Keliaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kidd, James
Simm, M. T.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cope, Major William
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stewart, Gershom


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Sturrock, J. Lang


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)
Sugdem W. H.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lorden, John William
Sutherland, Sir William


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Taylor, J.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Doyle, N. Grattan
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edge, Captain Sir William
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Evans, Ernest
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms
Waddington, R.


Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Matthews, David
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Fell, Sir Arthur
Middlebrook, Sir William
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Fildes, Henry
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murchison, C. K.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Forrest, Waiter
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Neal, Arthur
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)




Windsor, Viscount
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Winterton, Earl
Woolcock, William James U.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Wise, Frederick
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
McCurdy.


Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction in respect of dependent relatives.)

If a claimant proves that his widowed mother, for whose maintenance he is entitled to a deduction under Section twenty-two, Sub-section (1), of the Finance Act, 1920, is, by reason of old age or infirmity, compelled to depend on the services of a daughter, who resides with her, he shall be entitled to a further deduction of twenty-five pounds, provided the said daughter's income from all sources, does not exceed fifty pounds a year, and she is maintained at the claimant's expense.—[Dr. Murray.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment introduces what we may call a charitable element into taxation, and is in line with what the Chancellor has been endeavouring to do in the last year or two—that is to put some soul into the Income Tax. I think the Amendment is a quite reasonable addition to be made to the deductions in the case of a man supporting, in addition to his own responsibilities, his widowed mother. Where the widowed mother, owing to old age or infirmity finds it absolutely necessary that her daughter should reside with her, then this relief should be given. The case is plain enough. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am quite sure, will be quite sympathetic, and, I suppose, the matter will he whether or not he can afford it.

Mr. T. THOMSON: In supporting this Clause I desire to point out that the amount at stake, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will find, is very small indeed. I hope the matter will receive the sympathetic consideration of the right hon. Gentleman for in these cases the burden is severe. In these matters of taxation the object should be to place the burden where it will be felt least. So far as the sympathy of the Chancellor is concerned we shall have, I think, his support, and I hope it will be possible, on account of the small sum of money at stake, for him to be able to arrange this concession. The impost hits most hardly those who are least able to bear the burden. I am quite sure we must all have had individual cases brought to our notice where the burden is heavy.

Mr. MYERS: Several of my colleagues have put their names down to this Amendment. We believe that a man who has the responsibility of maintaining his widowed mother takes upon himself a much greater responsibility than he has in the case of a brother, a sister, or other relative. Having regard to the greater responsibility we feel that a greater remission should be allowed in respect of such cases.

Mr. WATERSON: When this matter came before the Committee last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a reply to the observations made from this side of the House. Twelve months have passed since that time, and the difficulties which were confronting us on that occasion are to-day not.so serious. Under these circumstances I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might, at any rate, give us the opinion of his Department, and seeing that the position has changed we ought to know whether he can justify his position for not granting this Clause.

Sir L. SCOTT: I was intending to reply to this Amendment. One cannot help sympathising with each one of the Amendments of this kind which are down on the Paper. We all feel sympathetically towards such hard cases as these, but after all charity does not consist in A giving B something which belongs to C. After all, the whole difficult question of adjusting the Income Tax to the more difficult cases is one that cannot be considered piecemeal. In 1920 the House dealt with a considered code, so to speak, of these allowances. Certain allowances were adopted and the line was drawn there. So far as one can see it does not appear that in the various Amendments of this kind on the Paper there is any coherent scheme. Each individual case like this is put forward on its merits as a hard case, and we are asked to give just a little more to this and that.
As a matter of fact that particular Amendment would probably never have been moved to-night but for the fact that an Amendment moved in the same way in 1920 produced the Section of the Act to amend which this Amendment was put down. It was accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion. The
concession was granted, and what happened? Immediately one concession is embodied in the Statute people look on that allowance and say, "I know a case very like that, almost as deserving, and why should it not be extended to that case?" To adopt this Amendment would cost the Exchequer £75,000. Of course, we cannot help feeling sympathy in these individual cases, but one must remember that the Budget is a financial estimate of income and expenditure for the year based upon certain definite expectations, and if this sort of Amendment were accepted those expectations would be defeated to a very considerable extent.

Lord R. CECIL: Everyone must recognise the fact stated by the Solicitor-General, that when once one embarks on these concessions it is difficult to know where to draw the line. I wish I felt it were possible to devise any principle upon which a number of these concessions could be granted and the remainder excluded. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as if such code had been devised in 1920. and I was hoping he was going to lay down for us the general principles on whate that code was framed. I think he would have found it exceedingly difficult to do so, hut, later on, it turned out that, so far from any code having been laid down in that sense, this particular remission was the result of an Amendment moved as this has been—an Amendment for which a strong case was made out. I do not think the Solicitor-General has quite realised the strength of this case. Parliament has said that where it is necessary to provide for a widowed mother, the person who has to so provide shall be entitled to a remission of £50. But it is pointed out that in some cases the widowed mother is so infirm that she must have someone to look after her, and if it is right that her son should be allowed a remission for looking after the widowed mother, surely if she is so infirm as to require special attendance, it would appear he is entitled to some further remission. I do not want to press the case unduly. I recognise the

difficulty of it. But it does appear to me to be impossible almost to resist the observation that if a man has to maintain two people instead of one, he should have an additional remission, and not only the same remission as if he had to maintain one only. It would seem almost clearly to follow that there should be an additional remission, and unless the Government can give some better answer I think we ought to press this Amendment.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The Government have already given to B what belongs to C by affording substantial relief to the direct taxpayer to the extent of is. in the £. These people for whom we are now pleading are in a very difficult position, and in looking after a widowed mother a person may, and often does, save the Government the Old Age Pension. Surely, if their action necessitates their maintaining a second person, the case is one which should receive consideration at the hands of the Government. I hope, therefore, this Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. RENDALL: I should like to point out that the Solicitor-General was making a statement quite contrary to the fact when he said this amounted to the giving by A to B what belongs to C. Here the State makes a very good bargain with the son who is supporting his mother, but in order that he may do so it is necessary in certain cases that a daughter should be at home, and, if we do not help him in some way to keep that daughter at home, he will not be able to keep his mother. The whole hypothesis here is, that if he cannot have someone at home to look after his mother, he will not be able to keep her at home. It is not a case of giving to one person what belongs to another, but a case of making a really good bargain with the son and thereby, saving the State a considerable amount of money.

Question put, "That the Clause he read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 203.

Division No. 172.]
AYES
10.42 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bromfield, William


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barrand, A. R.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Cairns, John


Ammon, Charles George
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Banton, George
Breese, Major Charles E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlilery)
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Ccllins, sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Johnstone, Joseph
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Kennedy, Thomas
Stanton, Charles Butt


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sutton, John Edward


Finney, Samuel
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Swan, J. E.


Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gillis, William
Lunn, William
Tillett, Benjamin


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Waddington, R.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Calne)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mallaileu, Frederick William
Waterson, A. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.Col. D.


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wignall, James


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wintringham, Margaret


Halls, Waiter
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayward, Evan
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Raffon, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Rendall, Athelstan
Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Dr.


Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Murray.


Hogge, James Myles
Robertson, John



NOES


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Fell, Sir Arthur
Locker-Lampoon, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fildes, Henry
Lorden, John William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lort-Williams, J.


Armitage, Robert
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Forestier-Walker, L.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forrest, Walter
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Frece, Sir Walter de
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Ganzoni, Sir John
Matthews, David


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.


Beilairs, Commander Canyon W.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Gould, James C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col, J. T. C.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Grant, James Augustus
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Blgiand, Alfred
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Murchison, C K.


Borwick, Motor G. O.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Greer, Sir Harry
Nall, Major Joseph


Brassey, H. L. C.
Grenfell, Edward Charles
Neal, Arthur


Bridaeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Briggs, Harold
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson. Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hailwood, Augustine
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Bruton, Sir James
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Llv'pl,W.D'by)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Casey, T. W.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cautley, Henry Strother
Haslam, Lewis
Parker, James


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hinds, John
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.


Clough, Sir Robert
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Coats, Sir Stuart
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pratt, John William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hood, Sir Joseph
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Purchase, H. G.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Cope, Major William
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Remer, J. R.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Howard, Major S. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Rodger, A. K.


Dawson Sir Philip
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwee)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Elveden, Viscount
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Evans, Ernest
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Scutt, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Lloyd, George Butler
Seddon, J. A.




Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Windsor, Viscount


Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Wlnterton, Earl


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wise, Frederick


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Huil)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Stewart, Gershom
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sturrock, J. Leng
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Sugden, W. H.
Wheler, Cot, Granville C. H.



Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sutherland, Sir William
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
McCurdy.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction in respect of daughter acting as housekeper to widower.)

If the claimant proves that he is a widower and that a daughter over sixteen years of age gives her full time to the duties of housekeeper, he shall, subject to the other provisions of Section nineteen, Sub-section (1), of the Finance Act, 1920, be entitled to a deduction of ninety pounds in respect of that daughter.—[Mr. Holmes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the Clause is to provide that where a man is a widower and finds himself compelled to arrange for a daughter to become housekeeper to the family, he shall still be able to have the same allowance as if he were a married man. It is not an infrequent case, and it creates a great amount of feeling where a daughter who has been earning money and bringing it into the home is taken away front her work and brought into the home to act as housekeeper. The man finds that not merely does he lose the daughter's contribution to the family purse, but that his allowance, from the Income Tax point of view, is only £135 instead of £225 a year. This is the third year I have had the privilege of moving this new Clause on the Finance Bill. I have looked up last year's Debate, and I find that the only reason, apparently, which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could put forward then against this, apart possibly from the money point of view, which must be very small, was this. He said:
What reason of solid substance is there for giving this to a widower, rather than to a bachelor?
The reason of solid substance is that the bachelor has not got a daughter. I am sure that will appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us he is prepared at last, after long pondering over this matter, to agree to this concession.

Sir L. SCOTT: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: The Chancellor!

Sir L. SCOTT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man with very delicate feelings. Apart from kindly levity, I should like to say a word in answer to a comment upon the last Amendment that was made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). He asked me why, in dealing with the general question, I did not explain the principle upon which the code under the 1920 Act was founded. Possibly I did not do so because I was a little tired at the time. The answer is that the Code under the 1920 Act is taken, with infinitesimal variations, from the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax. They considered a Code, and they advised, having heard a great deal of evidence, what, on the whole, were the cases in which allowances should be granted, and where a line should be drawn. I cannot remember whether or not the Section of the Act to which the last Amendment referred was included in that Code or was an addition to it, but that is really the basic principle, so far as you can say that in this matter there is a principle at all. I agree with the Noble Lord that it is very difficult to see a real principle in the list of exceptional allowances which are granted by the Code. I am afraid that again, with real sympathy for the particular case that has been mentioned in the Amendment now before the Committee—because it is obviously a case that is entitled to the kind 0 sympathy one can give in dealing with taxation—we cannot go beyond the Code of the 1920 Act, based upon the Report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I support the Amendment. We are now dealing with what I consider is a really important Clause, which concerns the family. We have been dealing previously with great financial interests and in some
cases both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General have either given way openly or promised to look into the questions raised between now and the Report stage. Those cases are of far less importance than this. From the purely working-class standpoint it does not matter much to us now, because wages are so low, but there are people who pay this lower Income Tax to whom it is a very important matter. The Government seem to assume that if the mother is dead and the children are over 16 years of age, there is no necessity for keeping the home together. They seem to assume that the father should go into lodgings and that the children should be sent into lodgings. Is that a fair and reasonable assumption? There may be two or three sons at home, working. The home ought to he kept together. Even if the children are married they like somewhere to go. I fail to see why in a case of this sort the whole amount of £225 should not be allowed, as in the case of a married man. One cannot sit in this House without feeling that we are up against class legislation. Those hon. Members who have been promised that their cases should be looked into went into the I obby against us last time, and I suppose they will be against us this time.

Mr. ACLAND: This subject is one on which there is some considerable local feeling. A man does feel that if he is definitely dispensing with the small earnings that his daughter might make, in order to keep her at home and keep the home together for his younger children, he shall be entitled to some little remission of Income Tax. Being a widower, and things being very difficult for him, he has, nevertheless, kept his daughter at home to make and keep a home for the younger children, and he feels that he ought to have some consideration. The case is strong. I realise that the Government have to harden their hearts and turn it down, and I suppose we shall have to wait until some little sentiment and consideration gets into the mind of the Government of the day in regard to this very important matter.

Mr. ADAMSON: I hope we shall have a different statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than we have had from the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-
General said the Government had a lot of sympathy for some of the new Clauses. In this case we are not asking for sympathy so much as justice. We claim that this concession ought to be granted on the ground of equity and justice. One small number of people involved in this new Clause are bearing their full share of the taxation of the country. They have contributed more than their fair share to the service of the community, and all that they ask in return is that they shall be treated in the same way as other sections of the community.
11.0 p.m.
It is one of these matters that have caused an amount of feeling far beyond the sum of money involved. In 1919 I had the privilege of moving an Amendment similar to this, and the relief was granted for a year, but it was withdrawn the following year, for what reason I do not know. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept this Clause now, he should at least give to it the same consideration that he has already given to Amendments moved from the other side. If between this and the Report stage he will make full inquiry, he will find that the position is as I have described. The proposal is simply a matter of justice. If all such proposals from this side are to be turned down, then we can come to no other conclusion than that questions which we have been discussing for the last three nights are dealt with from the point of view of class legislation. I hope that. that impression is not going to be created, but that impression will he formed if the appeals which we make continue to meet with treatment such as that which they have been receiving. We should have some statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will consider this small measure of justice.

Sir R. HORNE: I readily rise in response to the appeal of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he would not deliberately take the view that I have treated any one section of the Committee differently from any other in these matters of finance. It is always my object to put my views without fear or favour. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that the matters to which he has referred, which were brought forward by other hon. Members, related to questions which were entirely novel in connection with our finance, as to which the point of view that
might be taken was subject to correction by other suggestions that might be made. The question now before the Committee is not a novel one, and while I am ready to agree to give this matter further consideration, I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman exactly where we stand. It is true that in the year 1919, in response to a suggestion of my right hon. Friend, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer did include in his Finance Bill of that year a proposal similar to that which is now on the Paper. But in the year 1920 the Royal Commission on the Income Tax reported. That document is really a compendium of the point of view of a very skilled Committee, which investigated almost every possible case which could be brought before it. The Report is a mosiac, where all the parts fit into each other. If you begin to alter the allowances which are given in one case or another, you necessarily alter the balance of the whole fabric. Therefore, it is right that we should, for some period at least, allow the scheme of the Royal Commission to operate, so that we may then form our view as to whether any better system can be devised. It would be a very bad principle to take away particular pieces of that mosaic, because you would undoubtedly upset the relation of all the various interests to each other and make the system lop-sided. One of the things that the Royal Commission suggested was adopted in the Finance Act of 1920. The Report stated:
We have been asked to recommend allowances for expenses arising out of illness or disability, such as the travelling expenses of attendants of disabled persons; or to give compassionate rebate to persons who are compelled to maintain and pay personal attendants; or special relief to disabled persons in view of their decreased earning capacity. These claims, while differing in degree, all arise out of the personal or domestic circumstances of the taxpayer, and although we are conscious that in particular cases the operation of the general rule may result in individual hardship, we feel that we cannot advise any general relaxation of the principles on which the tax is levied.
That really is a statement of the general system upon which the Royal Commission reported. They realised that, whatever scheme you adopt, you have cases of individual hardship. That, of necessity, follows. Nevertheless, unless you are going to act, not on a system of principle, but on a sporadic scheme of trying to suit every possible case, which in the end
would prove impracticable, you must adhere to the principle which you lay down at the start. In connection with the case now before the Committee, it is different from what the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to. They said that only in circumstances in which an attendant was required to look after children should a widower be entitled to an allowance, and they recommended in such circumstances that he should be entitled to an allowance of £45 in respect of a daughter who remained in the house to look after young children. The result of the Amendment would be this: that a widower who has a daughter kept at home in order to look after young children has an allowance of only £45 in respect of that daughter, and that a widower with no children of youthful age, keeping a daughter at home in order to look after him, perhaps, or himself and grown-up sons, would be entitled to an allowance of £90.
At the present time, an allowance is granted in respect of a widower who keeps a daughter at home in order to look after the children. The Amendment would allow a widower who had no young children at all to keep a daughter at home in order to look after himself. In the case of the widower who keeps a daughter to look after young children an allowance of £45 is given. According to the Amendment, if he keeps a daughter at home, to look after himself only, he is to have an allowance of £90. In any case, the suggestion made is that there should be some change upon a deliberate report of the Royal Commission, arrived at after due consideration of all the circumstances and with the knowledge that the House of Commons had not very long previously considered that it would be appropriate to give this allowance. The Royal Commission took a different view from that taken by the House on that occasion. We have followed the views of the Royal Commission in setting down the cases in which allowances should be granted. I say deliberately to the Committee, if we begin to make changes in individual instances we cannot allow the principles upon which they proceeded to remain in force as regards other cases. Further, this would mean an enormous addition to the costs of the country. This particular alteration would involve an increase of £140,000 in the expenses of the year. As the Committee knows, there are
many other Amendments of a similar nature on the Paper, and if this Amendment is to be granted, they are equally justified. There is no discrimination to be drawn between them, and if all these Amendments were to be passed it would involve the country in an increased expenditure of something between £20,000,000 and £25,000,000.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: An increased expense or a decreased revenue?

Sir R. HORNE: I thank my hon. Friend. It would mean a decrease in revenue to that amount. That will give the Committee some indication of the effect which would be produced by beginning co cut in upon the well-designed and well conceived system which was issued to the country by a Royal Commission embracing Members of all parties. That Commission considered seriously the formation of a general scheme which would be satisfactory in itself and, at the same time, have its various parts properly related. In these circumstances, beg the Committee not to ask me to accede to the Amendment.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I merely desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can hope, from what he said recently, that he will consider between now and the Report stage the possibility of introducing an Amendment which will make the allowance of £45 in the case of the widower covered by this new Clause?

Sir R HORNE: I have not refused to consider it. I have promised I will consider it, but I thought it right that I should put before the Committee the views which at present very strongly impress my mind.

Mr. SPENCER: What would it cost if this Clause were given effect to?

Sir R HORNE: £140,000.

Mr. SUTTON: This is the first time I have risen in these Budget Debates, but I feel so keenly on this matter that want to make one or two observations. One has had to deal with widowers who have had daughters and who have complained very bitterly that they have had no allowances in these days. It seems to me rather inconsistent on the part of my right hon. Friend, because, if the daughter is under 16 years of age, the
father is able to get some allowance for her, but as soon as she has turned 16 years of age there is no allowance at all for her. Therefore the father would be in a better position so long as the girl remained under 16. One is rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak so glowingly in favour of a Royal Commission. One remembers other Royal Commissions that have reported, and I happen to have been one on several occasions who met the right hon. Gentleman, along with the Prime Minister, at Downing Street on some of these Royal Commissions, but they were not prepared on those occasions to put into operation the recommendations of the Royal Commission, because it did not suit their purpose at the time, but on this occasion it seems to suit their purpose, and I am strongly of the opinion that this is a case, although he has not told us that he is willing to consider this matter favourably, where something ought to be done. If nothing is done in the case, I shall certainly come to the conclusion that it is class legislation pure and simple.

Sir F. YOUNG: If I am right in my reading of the proposed Clause the provision would extend to cases of quite wealthy people who have their daughters at home and who would call them housekeepers, and who could very easily substailtiate the claim, and I think it is well for the Committee to have this fact in view, that there would be quite a number of these cases, because hitherto the Debate has rested almost entirely upon the hardship of the cases of a certain number of very poor people. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to consider any provisions such as that proposed, I think, at any rate, he ought to have a limit, so that the concession, if made, should be given to meet the hard cases only and not to apply indiscriminately to all ranks of society.

Mr. BANTON: I may have come to this House with a certain bias. I have frequently heard and read the phrase "class legislation," and having had the experience of the last few days, one cannot but be impressed that there has been a certain amount of truth in the statements I have heard and read, that you do come across this bias in favour of a class. We may be charged with the same bias, that we are in favour of the class we come
from. Naturally we stand for that class. We belong to the class that feels acutely these injustices which are being heaped upon them. Last night we were discussing the advisability of the remission of taxation for those who are well able to bear the burden of taxation. Pleasure grounds must be exempted from taxation. The poor people, who find it hard to maintain a home together, plead for a little consideration, but we are told of the danger of taking one of the pebbles out of the mosaic, and so upsetting the beauty of the whole scheme. I would have preferred a more open discussion on this to voting without giving voice. We would have liked a little more practical sympathy for some of the hardest cases. We ask for more sympathetic consideration in the true sense of the word for the proposals made on this side. We did hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have given a promise that this should have the favourable consideration it deserves.

Mr. ADAMSON: I hope my hon. Friend who moved this new Clause will not push the matter to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already promised that he will give consideration to this question on the Report stage. He has undoubtedly gone into the matter on a very wide basis since be made the promise, and I think if, between, now and Report, he goes into it even from the point of view of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, he will find that there is a great deal to be said for the case of the parties included in this new Clause. If be is prepared to go into this question between now and the Report stage, I am prepared to discuss it with him from that point of view, if he will give me the opportunity. Consequently, I hope that the hon. Member in charge of the new Clause will leave the matter open till the Report stage.

Mr. HOLMES: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to review this matter between now and the Report stage, I shall gladly ask leave for the proposed Clause to be withdrawn. But he started by saying that though he would give the matter reconsideration he could not do anything. If the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will reconsider it I will ask leave to withdraw.

Sir R. HORNE: I said I would reconsider the matter, and—

Mr. HOLMES: Do not say any more; I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment!

Sir R. HORNE: I gave the Committee reasons for my attitude, and said I was impressed by the case made. I am still impressed. I shall be glad to reconsider the matter and to talk it over with the right hon. Gentleman as he suggested.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 & 11 Geo. V., c. 18, Section 23.)

Section twenty-three of the Finance Act 1920 (which provides for a reduced rate of Income Tax on the first two hundred and twenty-five pounds of taxable income) shall have effect as if there were added the following:

The rate on which the next two hundred pounds of the taxable income of an individual shall be charged to Income Tax shall he two-thirds of the standard rate of tax, and the rate on which the next following two hundred pounds of the taxable income of an individual shall be charged to Income Tax shall be five-sixths of the standard rate of tax."—[Mr. Trevelyan Thomson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment does not, I claim, seek to upset the well-considered and well-designed scheme to which the Chancellor has referred. I have approached this on rather more general grounds than the more particular and special cases that we have been considering earlier in the evening. This new Clause seeks to extend the principle of graduation that is embodied in the present system of Income Tax which was recommended by the Royal Commission but which, I submit, has not been carried out to the extent to which it is desirable. No matter how correct a scheme may look on paper, practical experience of the working of it indicates directions in which it may he amended—in accordance with the general principles on which it was founded. This new Clause seeks to extend the principle graduation which will make the incidence of the Income
Tax more equitable. People of moderate and fixed incomes have been most hardly hit in recent years, and this new Clause seeks to give these people some relief on the lines of increased graduation.

Sir L. SCOTT: The hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause said that this Amendment had the advantage of not being obnoxious or open to the criticisms applied to the preceding Amendments—that it upset the scheme of the Royal Commission. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in that—

Mr. THOMSON: The principle!

Sir L. SCOTT: This would upset the very carefully thought-out scheme of effective graduation of the Income Tax, from the lowest point upwards, which was advised by the Royal Commission (page 28 of the Report), and which is embodied in the existing statutory scheme of graduation. That is the first objection. My second objection is that it would cost the Government nearly £12,000,000. Perhaps the Committee will agree that these two reasons are sufficient.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General are going to alter their minds in regard to the position they have taken up on this question. We have already, by the scheme of the Finance Bill, introduced the principle of graduation. This new Clause seeks to lighten the graduation upwards until it reaches the amounts laid down by the Royal Commission on Income Tax. In these days, when we are being told by everybody that taxation is pressing most severely upon the lower middle classes, surely it would be well for the Government to consider those whom they look upon as their strongest and most consistent supporters. We believe in a graduated Income Tax, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider our Amendments. The Solicitor-General told us that this pro-

posal would cost £12,000,000. His other objection was that it was contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax. The whole history of the Government on this point is a denial and a repudiation of such art argument, and nobody knows that better than the two right hon. Gentlemen in charge of this Measure. For this reason I trust that argument will not be taken as one of any weight.

As for the argument that £12,000,000 would be lost to the revenue, I am not going to challenge those figures, because it is impossible for us to go into an actuarial calculation as to exactly how much it is going to cost. Nevertheless, we appeal for some abatement of taxation in regard to the lower classes and the lower middle classes. On this matter we have always had masses of figures thrown at as as to the number of millions which this particular abatement we are asking for would cost the country. Before we accept the figures given in the bald statements made by the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer we should have some further details placed before us as to how they arrive at that cost. So far as I can calculate the number of millions which the Government say will be lost by the adoption of these various Amendments, they will amount to a larger sum that is likely to be realised by the whole of this tax. I hope therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General will take this Clause again into consideration and see if something cannot be done on the lines suggested in the Amendment. They have already undertaken to consider many Amendments which might involve bringing in a new Bill altogether, and I trust that in the course of that consideration this Bill will not be lost sight of.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 185.

Division No. 173.]
AYES
[11.37 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hayday, Arthur


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Hayward, Evan


Ammon, Charles George
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hirst, G. H.


Banton, George
Finney, Samuel
Rogge, James Myles


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gillis, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromfield, William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Grundy, T. W.
Kennedy, Thomas


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemeworth)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawson, John James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Halls, Walter
Lunn, William


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan,
Sexton, James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Waterson, A. E.


Myers, Thomas
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


O'Grady, Captain James
Sltch, Charles H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Whitingham, Margaret


Raffan, Peter Wilson
Spencer, George A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sutton, John Edward



Robertson, John
Swan, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rose, Frank H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Mr. Newbould and Mr. T. Thomson.


Royce, William Stapleton
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)



NOES


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Goff, Sir R. Park
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gould, James C.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M S.
Grant, James Augustus
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Green, Albert (Derby)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Green, Sir Harry
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Barlow, Sir Montague
Greaton Edward Charles
Pratt, John William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Grattan, Colonel John
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Barrand, A. R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Remer, J. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hallwood, Augustine
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Benn, Sir A. S. Plymouth, Drake
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Rodger, A. K.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brassey, H. L. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hinds, John
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hood, Sir Joseph
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Seddon, J. A.


Bruton, Sir James
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Butcher, Sir John George
Howard, Major S. G.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Casey. T. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Chamberlain, Rt. He. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Clay, Lieut.-Colanel H. H. Spender
Johnstone, Joseph
Stanton, Charles Butt


Clough, Sir Robert
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stewart, Gershom


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Sugden, W. H.


Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sutherland, Sir William


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Cope, Major William
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lorden, John William
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lort-Williams, J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Waddington, R.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Malialleu, Frederick William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Edge, Captain Sir William
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Matthews, David
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Eiveden, Viscount
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Evans, Ernest
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Willoughby, Lieut.Col, Hon. Claud


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Windsor, Viscount


Flides, Henry
Murchison, C. K.
Winiertan, Earl


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Murray, Rt. Hon, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Wise, Frederick


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Neal, Arthur
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forrest, Waiter
Nicholson, Brig, Gen. J. (Westminster)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)



Frece, Sir Waiter de
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut,-Col. Sir John
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Ganzonf, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
McCurdy.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Glyn, Major Ralph
Parker, James



Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance for spirits used for the manufacture of perfumery.)

Subject to such regulations as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe, the reduction and allowance of duty in respect of spirits provided for in
Section four of the Finance Act, 1918, and Section four of the Finance Act, 1920, shall apply to any spirits used for the manufacture of pertumery.—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
A certain allowance is made to manufacturers who use spirits, which would otherwise be exciseable, for making medical or scientific preparations, and we wish the same allowance to be applied in the case of perfumes manufactured in this country. Hon. Members will at once say scent is a great luxury and is obnoxious and all the rest of it and ought to be taxed. That is an obvious criticism, but as a, matter of fact very little of the scent used in this country is made here. We mostly use imported scent—eau de Cologne and the like. We use French and German scent. But there is a small industry in this country which is engaged in manufacturing perfumery which we export. The trade is not without importance, and in these days any trade which will give honest employment should be encouraged. Certain countries take a great deal of our manufactured perfumery. For example, in Abyssinia, where there is a great shortage of water, there is a lot of perfume used. It would surprise hon. Members to hear the figures of export of perfumery to Abyssinia. An even less number of women use scent in this country, thank goodness. The use of scent is not fashionable to-day. No decent man uses scent to begin with, and a less and less number of refined women, but there are women abroad who buy our perfumery. I am sorry hon. Members will not treat the matter seriously. We pay for our imports of raw material and food by exporting machinery, gramophones, boots and shoes.

The CHAIRMAN: These economic considerations are too general to connect specially with perfumery.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If a man manufactures medicine, some of which may be harmful, he gets a rebate on the spirit he uses. If he manufactures perfumery, which is harmless as long as you do not drink it, he gets no rebate. This is a small industry, employing a small number of people, but it would be a help, and in these days of great unemployment an industry which gives employment is worthy of consideration. The loss to the Exchequer would be, at the outside, about £12,000 a year, whereas it would give a help to a British industry which is honest and above-board.

Sir R. HORNE: I am sure the Committee will agree that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has introduced this topic with more enthusiasm than we have ever heard him display. We are thankful for the illumination he has cast on the subject and the indications he has given us of the habits of our people and those of Abyssinia, but not all his eloquence has succeeded in moving me. He indicates that it would only cost a very little revenue. Unfortunately the perfumery trade has been mixed up with essences and perfumery, and essences are so intertwined that we could not give this relief except at the cost of £1,500,000. That would be too great an expense, and it would be well to reject the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) (Duty on payments for admission to entertainments) might increase the charge, and is therefore out of order.

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
In view of the fact that we have had two late nights, I venture now to move to report Progress.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (26th June).

Orders of the Day — INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Charles Townshend be discharged from the Select Committee on Indian Affairs."— [Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask why it is proposed to add two hon. Members to this Committee, instead of one?

Colonel L. WILSON: The second name is necessitated by the death of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees).

Ordered, That Sir Charles Townshend be discharged from the Select Committee on Indian Affairs.

Ordered, That Sir Percy Newson and Colonel Sir Charles Yate be added to the Committee.—[Colonel L. Wilson.]

Orders of the Day — STANDING ORDERS.

71A.—Money Committees.

Notwithstanding any Standing Order or custom of the House, if notice is given of a Resolution authorising expenditure in connection with a Bill, the House may, if the recommendation of the Crown is signified thereto, at any time after such notice appears on the Paper resolve itself into Committee to consider the Resolution, and the Resolution, when reported, may be considered forthwith by the House.

Amendments made: Leave out the words, "Notwithstanding any Standing
Order or custom of the House, if notice is," and insert instead thereof the words, "When notice has been."

Leave out the words, "and the Resolution when reported may he considered forthwith by the House."—[Sir F. Banbury.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five minutes before Twelve o'Clock.